SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

156-159 of paper book) Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of payment received against sales of shares (page nos.160-167 of paper book) (C) DEMAT ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF FOLLOWING SHARES BROKERS IN RESPECT OF SALES & PURCHASE OF SHARES (Page nos. 168-172 of paper book) : • Suresh Rathi Securities Private Limited • Hem Securities Limited • Arihant Capital Markets

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

156 + 12,79,025 + 11,97,129 + 31,79,723 + 52,75,173 + 74,44,783 = 1,97,45,989/6). aggregate value of Rs 32,91,000/- are accepted as it is a human tendency that when the bank notes having denominational value of Rs 500- and Rs 1000/- were banned by the Government of India by invoking the Specified

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 145(3) while making the addition. The ITAT in the above order also held that the subject matter of assessment is the matters which were taken up by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment are very much subject matter of appeal so far as the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) exercising enhancement of income. In this case also

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

156 & 157/JP/2015 Therefore, in these facts and circumstances and in view of the well-established law in this regard, it is submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the trading addition by granting relief on legal ground. It is thus requested that such order passed by ld.CIT(A) deserve to be upheld. Assessee’s Grounds of Appeal

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Property sold (1/2 share). The reason granted by A.O. for such dis-allowance is “In absence of any supporting document / Evidences claim of “COST OF IMPROVEMENT” Rs 489159 is disallowed”. B. Whereas the Assessee vide reply to notice u/sec 142(1) of Act date 20.07.2023 has filed complete Details/Proof for such claim. Again on 23.08.2023 such Details/Evidence were E-Filed

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

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

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

house property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri

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.”

156 ITR 323 (SC) as discussed earlier. The facts of the case are entirely different. In the present case the terms and conditions have been agreed to by the appellant herself, they were not beyond her control. Thus, if the conditions agreed by the appellant are such as would result in not being able to fulfill the requirements

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