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

House property at Rs 70,000/-, which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133(6

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 99,903/-. The assessee has declared net profit at Rs. 9,133/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 on total turnover of Rs. 1,14,067/-/ Besides, the assessee has declared interest income at Rs. 3,69,437/- under the head income from other

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000/-, which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133(6

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000/- which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133(6

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

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property deed and bank transaction details. The assessing officer is directed to delete this addition. In view of the same the appeal on this ground is allowed. 9.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order, the remand report and the rejoinder submitted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Housing of PB 473 of PB Finance Ltd.) Anchor 1,00,00,000/- AAFCA4979C 3,10,50,000/- 607-613 of Refer Responded Dealer Pvt. PB Pg. Ltd. No. 575 of PB Thus, when the share investment took place in respect of all these 7 companies, the assessee has discharged the burden casted upon it as per provision of Section

VIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Ground As Under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner Has Not Accorded Proper Satisfaction In Terms Of Section 151 For Reopening Of Assessment U/ 148.” 3. Since, The Additional Ground Is Legal In Nature & Was Raised In Respect Of The Approval Granted By The Pr. Cit U/S 151 Of The Act

133(6) of the Act is relevant only on the aspect whether the capital asset transferred by the assessee is otherwise exempt under the Income-tax Act. Once, the asset is not exempt then, deduction as claimed by the assessee U/s 54F of the Act in the reassessment proceeding shall not have any effect on the formation of belief

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

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

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

133(6) from M/s Sana Land Developers Pvt Ltd, the assessee vide e-mail dated 01.03.2022 submitted that the booking of Flat No. 604 of Burj Burhan Apartment was cancelled by you and money was retumed in F.Y. 2016-17. Thus the deduction u/s 54 claimed by you amounts to wrongful 5 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur and malafide

JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house within the prescribed period as per section 54 of the Act, then if there is a delay in the actual possession to be handed over to the assessee and the said delay is not attributable to the assessee then having regard to the satisfaction of the substantial and primary condition of investment the deduction under section 54 cannot

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee's books of account showing result in respect of cash sale transactions, and made addition - AAC deleted additions

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

133(6) by the Tehsildar of Kotkasim, Alwar submitted to the AO. Section 2(14) clause (iii) states that an agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit is not to be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, as the agricultural land under consideration is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating