RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

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

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

natural justice to create unfair demand. In view of the above you are requested to kindly accept the cost of construction of 910 Sq Ft as claimed by the assessee.” 7. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that property sold by the assessee was not a property which was used for residential purposes as it apparent from the description

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

natural justice.\n2.(A) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in\nconfirming the action of the ld. AO in taxing a sum of Rs. 55,16,681 as long term capital\ngain in the hands of the assessee. The action of the CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary\nand

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

house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 99,903/-. The assessee has declared net profit at Rs. 9,133/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 on total turnover of Rs. 1,14,067/-/ Besides, the assessee has declared interest income at Rs. 3,69,437/- under the head income from other

DEVENDRA PRASAD TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO 2(1), JAIPRUR, NCRB BUILDING

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

justice to the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) should have asked the assessee to file the copy of home loan but it was not demanded by him and thus rejected the claim of the assessee. The ld. AR further prayed that when the interest claim has not been taken in the ITR then as to why the total income

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice or without application of mind". 2. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed that "The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the fact of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further

DCIT, CC-1, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG(DEREWALA), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, capital gains and interest from the respective parties during the year under consideration and original return for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31-01-2015 at Rs. 6,25,35,780/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out on 4-11-2016 at the various premises

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

house property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri

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

natural justice.\n2.(A) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in\nconfirming the action of the ld. AO in taxing a sum of Rs. 55,16,681 as long term capital\ngain in the hands of the assessee. The action of the CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary\nand

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed u/s 24(a). It was held by ld. PCIT that as per the provision of section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory, if not chargeable under the head “Business & profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “Income

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

natural justice. 2.(A) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in taxing a sum of Rs. 55,16,681 as long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. The action of the CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

natural justice.\n4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in\nconsidering the sale deeds found during search belonging to firm M/s\nEminent Build Developers in the hands of the assessee. Action in the\nhands of the assessee deserves

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

natural justice.\n4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in\nconsidering the sale deeds found during search belonging to firm M/s\nEminent Build Developers in the hands of the assessee. Action in the\nhands of the assessee deserves

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which had been auctioned, and to know what were the\nterms and conditions of the auction. No copy of any document relating to the sale\ninstance was furnished by the Appropriate Authority to the appellant along with the\nnotice, or at any time whatsoever....There is no doubt in our minds that on both counts\nthere has been