METAL EXTRUSION INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

1) may be taken as the value assessable by any authority of a State Government for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer on the date of the agreement. (5) The provisions of sub-section (4) shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

disallowance if the overall sense gathered from the order is that a further prognosis is called for. It would be sufficient compliance with the law that there is a prima facie evidence for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Even after this section, the Assessing Officer has to satisfy the particular limb of initiation

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

1,60,18,918/- only. Thus, the AO has disallowed interest expenses correctly as per provisions of law. The ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” [ emphasis supplied ] 5.2 In addition to the above addition the ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 10,72,932/- as the assessee has violated the provisions of section 43CA

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

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, ITA No. 302/JP/2017 is dismissed and ITA No

section 50C(1) of the Act and taken value of Rs. 29,32,189/- as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain. 5. That the assessee had purchased another agriculture land on 27- 04- 2012 for a consideration of Rs. 18,80,400/-. 6. That the assessee had claimed deduction

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

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,000,00/- worth of disallowance of transfer expenses; and Rs. 7,06,080/- in terms of section 50C valuation

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) Mumbai. In this case the court has held that the assessee could claim exemption only in relation to the investment made in the specified bond and not qua the entire capital gain computed as per section 50C and thus, on this aspect he said the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provision of section

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

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

section 50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

PRIME GOLD INFRA STEEL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowing of preliminary expenses written off for Rs. 48,286/- 4. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Ground No. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of Section 50C

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