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)

148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of provisions of Act. In the case of ASR Engg. & Projects Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 49 (Hyderabad- Trib.), the ITAT held that to be eligible to make claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account

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

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

148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-\n13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.\n14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-\nwithout claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming\ndeduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\n5.2 During the course of assessment

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

148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-\n13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.\n14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-\nwithout claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming\ndeduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\n5.2 During the course of assessment

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

148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-\n13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.\n14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-\nwithout claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming\ndeduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\n5.2 During the course of assessment

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

148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-\n13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.\n14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-\nwithout claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming\ndeduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\n5.2 During the course of assessment

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

148 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-\n13 filed by the assessee, taxable income has been declared at Rs.\n14,09,150/- after declaring income from other sources at Rs 1,80,097/-,\nwithout claiming loss of Rs 70,000/- from house property and after claiming\ndeduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-.\n5.2 During the course of assessment

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

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

148 of the Act in which he has specifically claimed deduction of Rs.94,23,201/- u/s 54 of the Act which at PB pages 16 to 18. Before proceeding further, we want to evaluate Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act which are reproduced below. ‘’Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-16(1), ITA 2231 to 2233/Del/2022 dated 16.06.2023 held as under: “13. In the recent judgment in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) their Lordship held that in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would

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

148 by the Pr. CIT, only the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are available. Considering this it can be said that report of investigation wing was not considered by the Range head while moving forward reasons to the Pr. CIT and by Pr. CIT while granting permission of issuance of reason.  With reference to the allegation of fictious transactions

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, the claim of exemption for commercial property investments like shop does not come under the purview of section 54. There has to be investment in agricultural land within two 6 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO years after the date of such

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

148 Reassessment-Service of notice Primary email id - Notice issued on the secondary notice - Failure to participate in the proceedings - Service of the notice is not valid - Reassessment was quashed. [S. 144, 144B, 147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226] 1.6 In the instant case also, the Notice for Enablement of Communication window. (notice intimating start of appellate proceedings by NFAC

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

148 of the Act, 1961 as the issue was settled by courts. Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of DCIT vs Speco Infrastructure in ITA 2324/Mum/2023 vide order dated 22/01/2024 held that the tribunal’s decision reinforces the principle that once additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) are deleted by the appellate authority with a reasoned order

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

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business capital gains and other sources. Return of income for\nthe year under appeal was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2012 declaring the total income at\nRs.2,29,200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

1).\nThe above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the \nidentifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are \nnumerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD \nand 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not \ndependent upon the date