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

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

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

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

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,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\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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property,\nBusiness and Other sources. The assessee is a finance broker and earned brokerage\nin come in his proprietary concern M/s Vihan Associates.\n5\nThe proceedings of assessment of income were commenced by issue of\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 19-09-2017, and notice u/s 142(1) dated 05-07-2018,\nand

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

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

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

158(2)BFA are paramateria. It is clear from the provisions of section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that penalty under this section is not mandatory but discretionary because provisions of both the sections are parimateria. 271AAB (Penalty where search has been initiatedi: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

House Property, Business, Capital Gain and other sources. Statutory notices as required under the law were issued from time to time and the assessee in response to those notices furnished the information which was after examining them placed on record as noted by the ld. AO. 5. During the course of search cash

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

house property? No. The case laws cited by assessee are not relevant as in the case of assessee nexus between borrowed funds and investment as clearly established. The payments were directly made from overdraft account only and also admitted by assessee. Considering the above, disallowance of interest of Rs.20,45,751/- is confirmed. This Ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring