JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

disallowing the claim of indexed cost of construction/improvement. The assessee filed his return of income on 3rd January, 2012 declaring total 2. income of Rs. 2,02,300/-. The assessee declared income from Long Term Capital Gain and also claimed deduction under section 54

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

54 of the Act which speaks about section 139(1) only. AO was not convinced with the argument advanced by the assessee in her favour and disallowed

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

54 F of the Act without appreciating the intention of the legislature behind the introduction of these provisions. 4. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend, substitute, and withdraw and/or any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of the hearing.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

54 can be availed if the full amount of capital gain is utilized within time limit u/s 139(4) as section 139 mentioned in the act for that purpose includes all subsections. However, if the amount is not actually utilized within the time limit, exemption can’t be claimed by depositing the amount after due date mentioned

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section itself under the facts and circumstances of the case. The addition of Rs. 2,50,00,003/- may please be deleted. 4. The assessee may please be permitted to raise more/additional grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is HUF and filed e-return of income on 21.07.2014 declaring total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

54,101/- was allowed 3 ITO vs. Vinod Kumar Jharchur HUF instead of Rs. 24,29,590/- which was rectified by applying the provision of section 154 of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) on both counts i.e. first that exemption so disallowed

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. 21. Given that we have adjudicated on the merits of the case whereby we have directed to delete the addition so made, the other ground of appeal relating to adjustment while processing the return

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

disallowances of claim u/s 54. The assessee claimed benefit of section 54 as the assessee has purchased two houses in the name