SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

154 by the AO. Both the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) vide separate orders dated 1st November, 2017 and 1st January, 2018 and, therefore, the assessee has filed these two appeals before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has also raised objection against the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 271AAB

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

154 by the AO. Both the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) vide separate orders dated 1st November, 2017 and 1st January, 2018 and, therefore, the assessee has filed these two appeals before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has also raised objection against the validity of initiation of proceedings under section 271AAB

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in passing the order dated 30.08.2016 and 18.11.2016 passed under section 271AAB and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without recording the satisfaction that under which limb the assessee has committed offence

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

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

SHRI RAJA RAM MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

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

154-748 Kgs 928488 3- nksuksa dk ;ksx flYoj ToSyjh 525-752 Kgs 22390316 eSVy ToSyjh 102-262 Kgs 357867 lseh izhfl;l LVkWu 727-834 Kgs 49]04]164 gekjh nwdku ij j[ks dEi;wVj esa tks ys[kk iqLrdsa cukbZ tkrh gS muds vuqlkj gekjh nksuksa dUluZ ds LVkWd dh fLFkfr lpZ ds fun rd fuEu izdkj

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

154 (Punj. & Har.) : 8. A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a case reported as CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan : [2006] 286 ITR 274, held that only Section 139 of the Act is mentioned in Section 54(2) of the Act in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

154 (Bom)held that “The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA 437/JP/2017_ 7 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) assessment for any assessment year. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31-7-2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)". 4. during the course of hearing, assessee relied upon the judgment

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then