VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Jaipur erred in:- Ground No.1:- In holding that the assessment order dt.26.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) by Assessing Officer to be erroneous in so far as is prejudicial

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

short term capital gains but deleted addition on account of long term capital gains—Held, there is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny—If proposal of Assessing Officer and approval of Pr. Commissioner

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Depreciation of Rs. 1,00,525/-) for the year under consideration. The Humble Appellant has also declared sale proceeds of building amounting of Rs. 61,00,000/- and after claiming indexing benefit, declared Long term capital loss of Rs. 50,450/-. That the Humble Appellant has claimed the cost of Property

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

term Capital Loss through trading of shares of Penny Stocks. The modus operandi found is that the investors/beneficiaries hold these shares for one year or so and then sale it to one of the shell private limited companies of the operator. These facts were confirmed by the stake holders’ viz. Operators/Syndicate members/Brokers which were providing accommodation entries in statements recorded

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

short “Act”] on 30.12.2018 before him in\nthe case of the assessee for all these four assessment year.\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost\nidentical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in\nfigure disputed in each year, therefore, these cross appeals were\nheard together with the agreement of both the parties

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains'. Similarly, if a company purchases rented house and gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under section 22 as income from house property. Likewise, the company may have income from other sources. The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law in sustaining the addition made by ld. AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land and building ignoring the vital fact that no addition had been made on the reason framed for reopening

PINK CITY ARTS AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

short term capital gain by grossly ignoring the fact that assessee could not commence business activities on such building/shed. Appellant prays that such building/ shed could not be put to use for the purposes of business and accordingly was not eligible for depreciation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

short, 'the Act'). As found by the High Court in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either from the Assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the assessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court. However, Shri N Venkataraman, leamed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

short, 'the Act'). As found by the High Court in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either from the Assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the assessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court. However, Shri N Venkataraman, leamed

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

short-term capital gain @ 30 per cent and where the amount is invested in such funds for the period exceeding one year, the maturity proceeds are taxable @ 10 per cent with the indexation benefit and @ 20 per cent without indexation benefits. In other words, the investments in Mutual Funds schemes are not tax-free investments. In support of its contentions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

short, 'the Act'). As found by the High\nCourt in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either\nfrom the Assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the\nassessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court.\nHowever, Shri N Venkataraman, leamed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

short, 'the Act'). As found by the High\nCourt in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either\nfrom the Assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the\nassessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court.\nHowever, Shri N Venkataraman, leamed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

short, 'the Act'). As found by the High\nCourt in none of the cases any incriminating material was found during the search either\nfrom the Assessee or from third party. In that view of the matter, as such, the\nassessments under section 153-C of the Act are rightly set aside by the High Court.\nHowever, Shri N Venkataraman, leamed

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.39 &\n41/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2013-14 & 2014-15 are inter related, identical on facts\nand are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each\nyear, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of\nboth the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

short AO].\n2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos.39 &\n41/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2013-14 & 2014-15 are inter related, identical on facts\nand are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each\nyear, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of\nboth the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

short question that arises for consideration is whether failure to record the reasons in the order which was communicated to the appellants is violative of the principles of natural justice for which the order should be held to be invalid. Held : The requirement of recording reasons under s. 127(1) is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

short AO] before him.\r\n2.\r\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -\r\n\"1. The impugned order u/s 147/148 rws 144 rws 144B dated 27.02.2024, as well\r\nas the action taken u/s 147/148 and notices are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-\r\nab-intio on facts of the case, for want