SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property and stamp duty is collected only on the guideline value. Hence, there 7 Savita Gupta vs. ITO is suppression in sales by the seller also as the amount received in cash would be treated as unaccounted sales. In view of the factual position, the source of investment is treated as unexplained in the hands of the appellant

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,43,99,690/-. However, the AO has framed the assessment at the total income of Rs. 12,09,86,280/- by making the additions as under :- Return Income Rs. 9,43,99,690/- Add: Addition of Income from House property

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation

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

153B (1) \nof the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(iv) In case the search and seizure action takes place in last week of March 2021 \nand the seized material is transferred by the AO of the search the assessee to the \nAO of the other assessee in the month of April 2021 apparently in the case of the \nother person

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 30th October, 2014 wherein the assessee has disclosed and surrendered an income of Rs. 7,01,00,000/-. In the return of income filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2015 total income of Rs. 7,88,48,920/- was declared

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house of Shri Rajendran,\nare now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for\nthe same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years\n2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed.\n23. 3. That reliance by the Assessing Officer / DRP in their respective orders upon\ncertain whatsapp

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

housing construction. Therefore, the business activity as builder is not found to be as per objects of the trust. Hence, the section 11(4A) is clearly found to be applicable on the facts of the case. Since, the appellant is not eligible for benefit of section 11 as discussed earlier, the argument of the appellant that section

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- ‘’17 Difference in DLC rate and Purchase price: During

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- ‘’17 Difference in DLC rate and Purchase price: During

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee