JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

158 Taxmann.com 80 (Raj.), Hon’ble Court has observed that neither in the assessment order nor in the subsequent show cause notice, the AO has specified that the assessee is covered by section 270A(9) of the Act. Even in the order imposing penalty, it is not specified which part of sub-section (9) of section 270A is attracted

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the\naforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental\nvaluation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of\njustice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the\nbasis of the valuation to be made

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

SANDEEP JAIN,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4) JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

158/- from house property. Appellant prays that home loan statement was furnished during assessment proceedings, therefore disallowance of loss is absolutely arbitrary and deserves to be allowed as claimed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.AO has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in not allowing deduction

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the\naforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental\nvaluation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of\njustice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the\nbasis of the valuation to be made

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the\naforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental\nvaluation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of\njustice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the\nbasis of the valuation to be made

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the\naforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental\nvaluation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of\njustice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the\nbasis of the valuation to be made

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)© of the Act and furnished inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 89,832/- by claiming excess interest in housing loan with a motive to pay less tax therefore, I am left with no alternative other than to impose a penalty of Rs. 27,759/-. Working of penalty is as under:- Tax on concealed income or tax sought

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

158 u/s 14A was made, which was deleted by ld CIT(A). Copy of order of ld CIT(A) is at PB page 249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

158-165 23 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT Based on the above set of documents the ld. AR of the assessee of reiterated the submission made before the lower authority and submitted that the transaction between the company and the assessee is pure commercial transaction and thus it does not attract the provision of section

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

House property, Business and Other sources. The assessee is a finance broker and earned brokerage in come in his proprietary concern M/s Vihan Associates. 5 The proceedings of assessment of income were commenced by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 19-09-2017, and notice u/s 142(1) dated

GAYTRI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Learned Authority & No Fact Had Been Concealed By The Assessee. 2. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby The Property Being Used For Residential Purpose Only. 3. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Even If Assessee Is Not Required To Maintained Books Of Accounts As Per U/S 44Aa Read With Rule 6F Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Is It Justified By The Learned Authority To Levy Penalty, Whereby Mistake In Claiming Of Deduction Under Wrong Provision Of Law Was Bona-Fide Mistake.”

158 as well as decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Chandrapal Bagga vs. ITAT & Another 261 ITR 67. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that once the assessee has brought the relevant facts on record and explained the omission and mistake in the claim of deduction of u/s 54 instead of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

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

158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that "....For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental valuation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made