PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

105-108]wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 7. In view of above legal and factual position it is submitted thatlt is not a case

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section\n54F:\n1.1.\nDuring the year under consideration, the appellant sold an immovable property\nsituated at Khasra No. 105, Land No. 58, Tilak Colony, Gram Khedli, for a total\nsale consideration of Rs.57,00,000/-. The appellant has claimed exemption under\nSection 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the entire capital gain\narising from this transaction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

property, its guest house, charges for equipment and recoveries from the contractors on account of water and electricity supply. These items are covered by the decision in Bokaro Steel Ltd.s case (supra). To the extent that it relates to these items, i.e., items excluding interest, the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 115BBE is not applicable for AY 2017-18, reference is made in case of Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib), Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO in ITA No. 245/Srt/2021 and in Jitendra Nemichand Gupta Vs ITO ITA No. 211/Srt/2021 and Indore Bench in DCIT Vs Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd 677/Ind/2019 (Indore Trib) and Jabalpur Bench

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

105 & 687/JP/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 09-10 has decided the issue in para 4.3. of its order by holding as under :- “4.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that it has been held

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

105 & 687/JP/2012 for the A.Y. 2008-09 & 09-10 has decided the issue in para 4.3. of its order by holding as under :- “4.3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) has deleted the disallowance on the ground that it has been held

SUSHILA BHARDWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hearing.”

105 times of the cost of land. Generally, in case of residential houses, construction being made immediately subsequent to purchase of land, the construction cost is always lower than the cost of land. Again he has used his estimations only as his contention may be correct in todays time but herein the matter pertains to 1981-82 at which time

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property,\nBusiness and Other sources. The assessee is a finance broker and earned brokerage\nin come in his proprietary concern M/s Vihan Associates.\n5\nThe proceedings of assessment of income were commenced by issue of\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 19-09-2017, and notice u/s 142(1) dated 05-07-2018,\nand

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698 and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income 14 Yuwam Education Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur vs. DCIT where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

105 taxmann.com 206 (Bombay) 26 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT ii) Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2016] 382 ITR 443 (Delhi). iii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi) iv) CIT vs. Shri Jawahar Lal Oswal, DBITA 49/1999 (Punjab & Haryana

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

House Property and Other Sources. c. From the above details it can be understood that the appellant is not into the business activity three years prior to impugned FY 2016-17. The assessee placed reliance heavily on the cash in hand reflected in the FY 2012-13. No proofs are shown by the appellant in the form of bank account

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

housing and industrial areas & public & civil facility & to encourage & promote aesthetics & efficiency & generate revenues in the process of development. To regulate grant, suspend, withdraw or cancel approvals for permissions in accordance with the provisions of this act. • To remove encroachment & construction not authorized & are in violation of the act & rules / regulations. The authority applied for the registration as charitable institution

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

house property, business and other sources. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out 28.07.2016 at the residential and business premises of "Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group", of which the assessee is one of the members covered therein. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 16/12/2017 declaring total income