FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, or Income from other sources and the expression improvement shall be construed accordingly 1(2) 2[For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, cost of acquisition, (b) in relation to any other capital asset. ] (i) where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 41st

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

148A(b), impugned order and consequential notice were to be set aside.\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the alleged property in question for the\nreassessment was sold by the appellant and not purchased by the appellant.\nTherefore, the ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.\nWith regards to the merits of the case, it is submitted

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd. and remaining amount through bank account.\nThereafter, the AO noted that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.4,28,000/-\nin the bank account on the different dates. The AO asked the source of cash deposit\nin the bank account. In response thereto, the assessee has stated that the same was\nout of his and family

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)

sections 148A and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Salaries – Chargeable as (Reassessment) – Assessment year 2019-20 – Assessee was an individual assessed to income from salary, house property

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

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. It is submitted that though the definition of assets is inclusive, all the assets included basically are of such nature, which represent an economic resource, either immovable or movable, having value. Thus, genuine losses suffered by assessee (alleged as bogus by ld.AO) cannot

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

sections 148A and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Salaries\nChargeable as (Reassessment) – Assessment year 2019-20 – Assessee was an individual\nassessed to income from salary, house property

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, interest or other sources. For the year he has filed his\nITR declaring the total income of Rs.19,89,250/- on dt.27.08.2018(1-\n6). In this case the ld. AO JAO had issued the notice u/s 148A(b) on\ndt.12.03.2022 on the reason that As per information available in this\noffice, you have received advance of Rs.75

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House, Ballard Pier, Mumbai vide its office letter No\nDGIT (Inv)/ Information/PJ2014-15 dated 03.07.2014 and received form the Income\ntax Officer (Inv)(Hqrs) O/s the Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Rajasthan,\nJaipur the assessee has taken the accommodation entries as unsecured loans form\nthe following companies which are managed and controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar\nJain Group, Mumbai:\nSNo

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

148A(d) of the Act holding that it was a fit case for issuance\nof a notice under Section 148 of the Act.\n4. It is relevant to note that the AO of the searched entity had issued a\nsatisfaction note dated 11.03.2023 recording his satisfaction that the\ndocuments belonging to the petitioner had been discovered which had a\nbearing

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 148A(d) of the Act.\nIt is ordered accordingly.\"\nHere also the same position and liable to be quashed the assessment order. Further the\ncase of the assessee is on much strong footing because in the notice the time is given only\n3.00 hour as the notice digitally signed at 11.06 AM on dt. 17.12.2019 and the time

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

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148A(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to show a cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- paid to PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd. in cash shall not be treated as unexplained Income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section

SH. BHUPENDRA MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

house property : Rs. 50,400/- The assessee declared total taxable income of Rs. 4,25,340/-. The assessee has opted presumptive business income u/s 44AD of the Act, where the assessee has shown his gross turnover/receipts to the extent of Rs. 13,40,000/- and offered the income of Rs. 2,02,130/-. The ld. AO noted that the assessee

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain,\nbusiness or profession.\nA combined reading of S. 14with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the\nassessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as\nenumerated u/s 14 of the Act and if it doesn't fall under any specific head of income

SUMER PRAKASH KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

House property\n10,71,228/-\n6.\nAdd: Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act\n12,02,26,202/-\n7.\nTotal assessed income\n15,23,89,024/-\n8.\nRounded off u/s 288A of the Act\n15,23,89,020/-\n4. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the\nassessee has filed an appeal before

SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

house\nworked out at Rs. 1,69,683/- and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.\n62 lacs made by AO by dismissing the appeal of assessee on technical\nissue.\n3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of\nappeal.\n4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\"\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that