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)

124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, the case is not falling within clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. In view of the above factual

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

house property\".\nIn absence of any reply and documentary evidences, it cannot be ascertained\nthat the assessee has fulfilled the above mentioned conditions and eligible for the\ndeduction u/s 54 of the Act. Further, the assessee has not filed the ITR for claim\nu/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, the\ndeduction u/s 54 cannot

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

124 are not automatic but available only when the assessee\nsatisfies the requirement of section 13-Assessee entitled to the registration\nunder & 12AA\nThis decision was rendered for declining registration u/s 12A of the Income\nTax Act. With regard to issue of denial of exemption u/s 11 it is held that\nExemptions under ss. 11 are not automatic but available

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

124 are not automatic but available only when the assessee\nsatisfies the requirement of section 13-Assessee entitled to the registration\nunder & 12AA\n\nThis decision was rendered for declining registration u/s 12A of the Income\nTax Act. With regard to issue of denial of exemption u/s 11 it is held that\nExemptions under ss.11 are not automatic but available

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 ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

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

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house loan of Rs. 1,43,619/-." [Emphasis Supplied] 1. Accordingly, the provisions of section 115BBE were not invoked. Returned Income was accepted and resultantly no demand was raised. 2. The conscious call, of not assessing surrendered income as per the provisions of section 69/69A/698 and, accordingly, not applying the provisions of section 115BBE, is evident from the fact that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES 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)

Houses Limited has been left from acquisition only on the ground that it had been converted from agricultural to residential purposes, but similar treatment has not been given to the petitioners whereas in their case also conversion order for converting the land use from agricultural to residential has also been passed. Thus, it is clear that the entire exercise

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)

Houses Limited has been left from acquisition only on the ground that it had been converted from agricultural to residential purposes, but similar treatment has not been given to the petitioners whereas in their case also conversion order for converting the land use from agricultural to residential has also been passed. Thus, it is clear that the entire exercise

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)

Houses Limited has been left from acquisition only on the ground that it had been converted from agricultural to residential purposes, but similar treatment has not been given to the petitioners whereas in their case also conversion order for converting the land use from agricultural to residential has also been passed. Thus, it is clear that the entire exercise

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)

Houses Limited has been left from acquisition only on the ground that it had been converted from agricultural to residential purposes, but similar treatment has not been given to the petitioners whereas in their case also conversion order for converting the land use from agricultural to residential has also been passed. Thus, it is clear that the entire exercise

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

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

124, Old Dhan Mandi, Ward 2(1) Agrasen Bajar Rampura, Kota – 324 005 Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AVJPS 5149 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Hemang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

124(3) (α)\nprecludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does\nnot do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142 (1). [Para 1]\nIn the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same\ntime, this Court notices that the High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

124(3) (a)\nprecludes the assessee from questioning the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, if he does\nnot do so within 30 days of receipt of notice under section 142 (1). [Para 1]\nIn the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same\ntime, this Court notices that the High Court