ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

119 (Guj.), it is held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad that :— 24 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company "(6) Section 194C, as already noticed, makes provision where for certain payments, liability of the payee to deduct tax at source arises. Therefore, if there is any breach of such requirement, question of applicability of section

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

housing PVT.LTD [TS-751- ITAT -2020(CHNY) • Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, in case of Reliance Payment Solutions Limited [ TS-199-ITAT-2022 (Mum) • Copy of order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Lata Phulwani, ITA No. 246/JP/2020 • Copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, in the case of Ganpati

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

119 of the Act dated 06.09.2021 provided exclusions to section 144B of the Act. Thus, in view of the above background, pending assessment proceedings were taken further. A notice u/s 142(1) of the Act seeking details/justification/explanation was issued on 10.09.2021. This notice was sent through ITBA on the given e- mail Id in the latest ROI filed

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House, Vs. Ward 7(3) Sector-32, Jaipur. Gurgaon. (Haryana) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCH 7688 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate & Shri Utkarsh Shara, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

119; or (d)the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.". 7.2 In reaching such conclusion, I rely on the following judicial rulings: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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)

119 taxmann.com 358 (Karnataka) (PB page 146- 150). In this case it was held that where assessee filed all details before Assessing Officer (AO) that no expenditure under section 14A was attributable to exempt dividend income earned by it during year and AO accepted same, since AO had taken a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision under section 263 merely

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

house\nproperty for Rs 69.90 Lacs vide a registered sale deed executed on 28.07.2017 (and i.e.\nthe very information also in possession of the AO). Thus, the money of Rs 69.90 Lacs\nwas not source less and the AO himself was of the view that this was a transaction of\nsale of immovable property hence there is no question

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.

house within the period stipulated in Section 54 F(i), if the assessee wants the benefit of Section 54F, then he should deposit the said capital gains in an account which is duly notified by the Central Government. In other words, if he wants of claim exemption from payment of income tax by retaining the cash, then the said amount

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would not be taken into account in determining the tax liability of the shareholders to whom such loans or advances were given. This circular was clearly contrary to the plain language

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

119. Kindly refer recent judgment of Jodhpur Bench in the case of Ritesh Suhalka V/s Pr. CIT Udaipur in ITA No. 383/Jodh/2019 dt. 21.12.2020. On same plea 5.2 Wrong direction for verification u/s. 2(14): Further the ld. Pr. CIT has wrongly and invalidly give the direction to make verification u/s 2(14) for the verify the genuineness of expenses

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property exceeding a specified floor area, whether by way of ownership, tenancy or otherwise, as may be specified by the Board in this behalf; or (ii) is the owner or the lessee of a motor vehicle other than a two-wheeled motor vehicle, whether having any detachable side car having extra wheel attached to such two-wheeled motor vehicle

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

house as an issue of dispute before him. Therefore according to us, Id CIT (A) could not have made enhancement on the issue holding that capital gain shown by the assessee itself is not in accordance with the law and given a finding that no capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

SHRI DEEPAK KHANNA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property at Rs. 1.09,200/- income from business at Rs. 1,73,68,625/- and income from other source at Rs. 3,68,607/-. Thus, the assessee has declared returned income of Rs. 1,81,46,430/- after claiming deduction u/s 80C and 80TTA at Rs. 1,60,000/-. The case was 3 Shri Deepak Khanna

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

housing market. As a professional intermediary, the broker earns a commission for facilitating successful transactions. During a thorough survey, the assessee-appellant provided comprehensive statements that clearly outlined the nature of each transaction and the pivotal role played in connecting the parties, i.e., the buyers & sellers. These statements were bolstered by meticulous ledger records, receipt books, and formal agreements

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing and Development Department, Govt. of Rajasthan Dt. 19.07.2007 which was published for compulsory acquisition of land for Mahindra Sez in the Gazette of Rajasthan on 25.07.2007. • Award determining total consideration payable by the Government on account of acquisition of the agricultural land was issued on 06.08.2007. The said Award was an allotment letter of land. • A representation was made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing and Development Department, Govt. of Rajasthan Dt. 19.07.2007 which was published for compulsory acquisition of land for Mahindra Sez in the Gazette of Rajasthan on 25.07.2007. • Award determining total consideration payable by the Government on account of acquisition of the agricultural land was issued on 06.08.2007. The said Award was an allotment letter of land. • A representation was made

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing and Development Department, Govt. of Rajasthan Dt. 19.07.2007 which was published for compulsory acquisition of land for Mahindra Sez in the Gazette of Rajasthan on 25.07.2007. • Award determining total consideration payable by the Government on account of acquisition of the agricultural land was issued on 06.08.2007. The said Award was an allotment letter of land. • A representation was made