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

House property at Rs 70,000/-,\nwhich lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the\nassessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original\nreturn, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not\ninitiated any action under section 133

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

House property at Rs 70,000/-,\nwhich lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the\nassessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original\nreturn, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not\ninitiated any action under section 133

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

House property at Rs 70,000/-,\nwhich lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the\nassessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original\nreturn, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not\ninitiated any action under section 133

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.

133 house was not completed within the TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh) prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed. It was held that thrust was on investment and not on completion. 3. Satish Chandra Gupta The facts of this case

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

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

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

house property which is again not disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under s. 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House property, Business and Other sources. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings ld.AO found that assessee has shown receipt of loan from Smt. Suman Agarwal and Smt. Laxmi Agarwal. To verify the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Enquiry was conducted u/s 133(6) of the Act. 3.2 In the case of depositor Smt. Laxmi

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration.\nEquating the income

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n==End of OCR page 40==\n41\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration. Equating

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee

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

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

section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO should also verify the genuineness of expenses incurred on account of interior, house hold expenses and furniture expenses mostly paid in cash. 8. Needless, to say that the AO should provide sufficient opportunity before passing the consequent order as per direction given.” 5. Assessee, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from

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)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

133/- (unsecured loans) represent balances from earlier financial years, opening balance as on 01.01.2014 cannot be considered as opening balance for the financial year as on 01.04.2013 for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. It is possible that the balance as on 01.12.2013 was nil (which is just one month before the date for which the data

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

133/- (unsecured loans) represent balances from earlier financial years, opening balance as on 01.01.2014 cannot be considered as opening balance for the financial year as on 01.04.2013 for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. It is possible that the balance as on 01.12.2013 was nil (which is just one month before the date for which the data

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

133/- (unsecured loans) represent balances from earlier financial years, opening balance as on 01.01.2014 cannot be considered as opening balance for the financial year as on 01.04.2013 for the purposes of section 68 of the Act. It is possible that the balance as on 01.12.2013 was nil (which is just one month before the date for which the data