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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C supported by the case laws was filed. (c) In reply dt. 20.11.2019 (PB 25-28), the blindness certificate of brother, evidence of brokerage paid on sale of land and evidence of expenditure incurred on the agriculture land was filed. (d) In reply dt. 21.11.2019, explanation with respect to investment in house property and evidence of expenditure incurred

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

house property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made

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

house property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made

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

House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration. Equating

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)

House Property’’. Therefore, in this way, every case of ‘’letting out buildings alongwith other amenities’’ would automatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely restricted to Software Technology Park only as has been wrongly understood by ld. PCIT. It is important to mention here that the AO after detailed enquiries and verification on completed

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction undersection 80HHor

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

173 TTJ 537, wherein it was held as under: “Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54—Purchase of new house vis-a-vis booking advance to builder—Assesse paid Rs. 1 crore as booking advance to a builder for purchase of new residential house after selling his old residential property—Though the legal title in the said property has not passed

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

173 taxmann.com 834 (Delhi) Abha Gupta v. Income-tax Officer*\n\nSection 148, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping\nassessment Issue of notice for (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14\nAssessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on basis of information received\nfrom Investigation Wing relating to certain share transactions alleging that sell trades\nexceeded

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

173, Surat Urban Development Authority 174, Jamnagar 10 Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority vs. CIT(E) Area Development Authority 175, and the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation 176 are rejected. Likewise, the revenue's appeals against Agra Development Trust177; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 178; Raebareli Development Authority 179, Rajasthan Housing Board 180; Mangalore Urban Development Authority 181; Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

173 (Kerala) is as under: 22 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. "I. Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 132A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Submission of returns for six years) -Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09- Whether any material unearthed during search operations or any statement

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

173 ITD 130 (Ahd.) (Trib.) Even after the insertion of Explanation 2, the Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous particularly