DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

houses combined internally on the directions of the assessee cannot be treated as a single residential property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 131 (Guj.) In the reasons recorded by Ld. A.O. there is no whisper that “due to failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment” the income has escaped assessment and, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 is wrong

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

SHRI SHYAM GIDWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the explanation so submitted in support of source of deposit of Rs 6 lacs cannot be accepted and is hereby dismissed

151(2), the Assessing officer has duly sought and obtained approval from the JCIT who was the competent authority as so prescribed under 9 Shri Shyam Gidwani vs. ITO law before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. This is thus no oversight on part of the Assessing officer and no inherent lacunae affecting the very correctness

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house and construction work. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 12,31,000/- was made on account of cash deposit in bank accounts u/s 68 of the Act and an addition of Rs. 9,60,750/-(purchase consideration of Rs. 9,15,000+ Stamp duty expenses of Rs. 45,750) was made on account of investment in immovable property

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

properties from the Income Tax Department:- 1. Shri Bheru Ram 2. Shri Khema Ram Choudhary 3. Shri Ram Prakash Sharma 4. M/s. Harshita Construction 5. Shri Lal Chand Sharma A copy of his current bank account along with confirmation letters/affidavits of the above said persons who are agriculturists and the amount was received by them from the Government of India

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

151 and section 153, in the case of a person\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st\nday of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the Assessing\nOfficer shall-\n(a) issue notice to such person

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

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house on that address. 5 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR The AO looking to overall facts of the case and the discussion made with the assessee found the assessee liable to pay long term capital gain on sale of property in question by calculating as under:- Sale Consideration Rs.8,87,220/- Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.8

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

house property as is also evident from the assessment order passed u/s 153A wherein there is no mention about any incriminating material found for the relevant assessment year even no mention in the AO remand report. 15 ITA NO. 469 & 470/JP/2024 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN 2. SECOND REASON : NO ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148. 29. The Department has not set up a case that for initiating

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

151 and Section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in Section

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)

151 and more particularly clause (b) of section 149(1), the notice for the period beyond three year can be issued only when the AO has in his possession books of accounts or other documents or evidence which reveals that income chargeable to tax, represented in form of assets is of Rs. 50 lacs or more. Since, in the instant

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

property to "B" for a consideration of RS. 100 crore and receive only a consideration of 1.00 crore and it is mentioned in the transfer instrument that balance of consideration would he paid after 20 years then no tax can be levied on such balance consideration of Rs. 99.00 crore which has not been received as per the contention

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

section 151 for reopening of assessment u/ 148.” 3. Since, the additional ground is legal in nature and was raised in respect of the approval granted by the Pr. CIT U/s 151 of the Act, therefore, the Bench the directed to the Department to produce the relevant record of approval granted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

property documents regarding purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the finding recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13, the fact of seizure of possession letter is mentioned. The Respondent AO simply mentioned that what was shared

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property, income from capital Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT\n(Inv) wing-2 Jaipur. In the matter detailed statements of husband of the\nassessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

151 and Section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that, (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in Section