SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1 and upholding the action of the ld. AO in completing the\nassessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal,\nunjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by\nquashing the entire assessment order which is passed in gross violation of natural justice

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1 and upholding the action of the ld. AO in completing the\nassessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal,\nunjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by\nquashing the entire assessment order which is passed in gross violation of natural justice

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nsummarizing the legal position qua assessments under section 153A held as under:-\n“...Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the\nbasis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or\ninformation available with the AO which

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) of the Act. Further Hon'ble Delhi High Court\nsummarizing the legal position qua assessments under section 153A held as under:-\n“...Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the\nbasis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or\ninformation available with the AO which

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,68,874/ made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged investment without considering the fact that assessee was not the owner

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

1,18,95,000/- therefore, was not brought to tax. These\nreasons are interconnected and interwoven. In fact, even if these reasons are seen as\nseparate and severable grounds, both being factually incorrect, Revenue simply\ncannot hope to salvage the impugned notice. Through the affidavit-in-reply a faint\nattempt has been made to entirely shift the centre

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

disallowed and\nadded to his total income.\nIn response of the above, no reply furnished by the\nassessee. Again, a final show cause dated 04.10.2019 issued and\nserved through ITBA portal asking the source of cash deposited.\nFurther, no reply submitted by the assessee either through mail or\nthrough speed post. Therefore, the unexplained cash deposit

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to rs. 1,92,767/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 399/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2015-16 : 1. That the orders passed

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to rs. 1,92,767/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 399/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2015-16 : 1. That the orders passed

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to rs. 1,92,767/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 399/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2015-16 : 1. That the orders passed

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without clearly adjudicating the legal ground raised in the memorandum of appeal. Appellant prays such action being in absolute violation of principles of a quasi judicial authority, such order deserves to be quashed; 1.1 That on facts

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 50C of the IT Act 1961, and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 67,36,715 (1/8 of Rs. 5,38,93,718) against the declared sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- (1/8 of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of 2 Manoj Kumar

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C and sub-section (15)\nof section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty\nvalue of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for\nvaluation of capital asset under those sections:\n29 [Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second\nproviso

SHARDA DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsharda Devi, 421, Lohia Padi, Alwar- 301001. Pan No.:Adkpd7161J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Alwar. ..... Respondent

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In view of the above provisions of section 271(1)(c) alongwith explanation 1 of the Act, relevant to the matter

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

1) Where the total income of an assessee, (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the Return of Income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698B

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(a), I am of the considered view that it would be proper\nto set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for\nmaking a fresh assessment. Accordingly, I set aside the assessment and refer the\ncase back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. The AO is\nfurther directed to provide sufficient

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3) of the Income 2 Lal Singh Naderia vs. ITO tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 19.12.2011. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in sustaining the disallowance of relief claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Income