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

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession or income from other sources then it is to be assessed as deemed income u/s 68 or 69 family. In the present case, the addition made by the AO is u/s 69C of the Act. The section 69C is reproduced as under- Unexplained expenditure, etc. 69C. Where in any financial year an assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 57(iii) and it was held that when the assessee borrowed the funds for business, the interest earned on short term deposit of such funds cannot be allowed as deduction. 19. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd. (supra). The assessee company invested its paid-up share capital

DAMODAR LAL SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house atD-186, Vidhyadhar Nagar for Rs. 4 Shri Damodar Lal Soni vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Jaipur . 4,00,000/- showing Long term capital gain of Rs. 13,222/- thereon in the original return of income. The year of acquisition of the said property was shown as F.Y. 1993-94 and the year of improvement was shown

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

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

115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 7. Ld CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the disallowance u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act made by the AO without recording proper satisfaction and without considering the submissions that no expenditure was incurred by the appellant.’’ Assessment Year

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

115 (Copy at PB page 209-212) has held that where investments had been made by assessee from capital and reserves and not out of borrowed funds and assessee had not incurred expenditure to earn 13 Career Point Limited, Kota. exemptincome,nodisallowancecouldbemadeundersection14A. 2.8 When mixed funds (interest bearing and interest free) are available, and payment is made out of that

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

housing construction. Therefore, the business activity as builder is not found to be as per objects of the trust. Hence, the section 11(4A) is clearly found to be applicable on the facts of the case. Since, the appellant is not eligible for benefit of section 11 as discussed earlier, the argument of the appellant that section

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)

115 BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of various additions made by him. 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. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 2. First, we take up the appeal

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)

115 BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of various additions made by him. 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. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 2. First, we take up the appeal

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)

115 BBE of the Income Tax Act in respect of various additions made by him. 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. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 2. First, we take up the appeal

NISHA BHRADWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3 (3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Section 115BBE are squarely applicable to the case of the appellant and it is held that the said provisions have been correctly applied by the Assessing Officer. Hence the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A r.w.s 115 BBE is sustained to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- Accordingly, Grounds 2 and 3 are being treated as partly allowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

115 (SC)/[2018] 256 Taxman 63 (SC) [14-05-2018] has granted SLP in this case also. The head note of the decision are as under- "Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 High Court by impugned order held that where during search proceeding

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

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, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

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, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained