M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

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.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

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

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

Housing V. ITO (ITA No. 5188/Del/2019.  DCIT Vs. Bsant Bansal (ITA No. 610/JP/2012.  Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta vs. ACIT 141 taxmann.com 369 ( Mumbai- Trib.)( 2022)  Vikram Krishna vs. PCIT 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC) (2020)  PCIT vs. Glandder Ceramics Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act and Section 53A of transfer of property Act has no application for imputing the notional purchase value as has been done by the Ld Assessing Officer. The sellers with whom Ikrarnamas were made were eventually found not to be the owner of the land proposed to be purchased. When the alleged transferors

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

47[constructed, one residential house in India], 46then], instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— 12 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

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

47,071/- out of which interest earned on the deposits in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/-. The balance interest received by the assessee is from the deposits made with cooperative banks except the small amount of Rs. 3,221/- as interest on mollasses fund. After reducing the interest paid on FDR loans from Bundi Central Co-operative

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

47,071/- out of which interest earned on the deposits in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/-. The balance interest received by the assessee is from the deposits made with cooperative banks except the small amount of Rs. 3,221/- as interest on mollasses fund. After reducing the interest paid on FDR loans from Bundi Central Co-operative

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

property to be used or applied directly for the benefit of a persons referred to U/s 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, nothing contained in Section 11 and 12 shall operate so as to exclude the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the activities of the assessee

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder..” Even otherwise, after having submitted even on merits, ld. DR cannot raise issues before the Hon’ble Bench in order to rake up additional issues to hold the order of ld. AO erroneous.” 16. In addition to the above counter reply

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

v. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and the Supreme Court held that the view taken in the aforesaid case of Gujarat High Court P in Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai is not the correct view and the Apex Court upheld the view taken by other High Courts referred to above. The Apex Court in para 20 of the aforesaid judgment said

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

2,65,99,000 \nbeing the alleged cash transaction between M/s. Millenium Build Home P. \nLtd and M/s Nevralji Estate P. Ltd.\n11. As is evident from the facts of the case narrated herein above that \ndisputes arise because the revenue collected some documents in that \nsearch and those documents were considering being the nature of \nincriminating and that