NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

section 71(2) and 71(3A) of the Act stated that the beneficial the provisions as applicable should be applied and thereby the claim of the assessee to seek the adjustment of loss under the head from income from house property

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , 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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 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-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. PAN No.: AAEPB 0767 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 10/02/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

71-81) TP Adjustment - ALP determination qua domestic transactions entered into by the assessee with its partner u/s 92BA(i) of the Act-TP Adjustment of transactions falling u/s 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT: We find that though all these arguments have been duly considered by the ITAT in the orders for the earlier years, particularly in the case

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

71-81) TP Adjustment - ALP determination qua domestic transactions entered into by the assessee with its partner u/s 92BA(i) of the Act-TP Adjustment of transactions falling u/s 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT: We find that though all these arguments have been duly considered by the ITAT in the orders for the earlier years, particularly in the case

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

section 65A & 65B of the \nEvidence Act has not been followed by the assessing authority. However the \ncontention of the appellant is mere based on presumptions and assumptions. \nFurther the appellant has stated that the learned AO has not mentioned in the \nsaid section that steps were taken in this regard. However there is no requirement \nto record such satisfaction

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

71,628/-. 10. Taking up the alternate plea of the assessee that the interest expenditure is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Act, we have gone through the provisions of law in this regard. Section 24(b) reads as under:- Deductions from income from house property. 24.” Income chargeable under the head “Income from house property” shall be computed

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) 6. The issue in hand in the context of Section 263 is directly covered by the decisions in the following cases: 6.1. In Surendra Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 222 TTJ_UO (Chd) it was held that: “Principal CIT has confused himself between 'undisclosed income' and the words 'unexplained income'. Provisions

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 and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

house property\".\nIn absence of any reply and documentary evidences, it cannot be ascertained\nthat the assessee has fulfilled the above mentioned conditions and eligible for the\ndeduction u/s 54 of the Act. Further, the assessee has not filed the ITR for claim\nu/s 54 of the Act. Therefore, considering the circumstances of the case, the\ndeduction u/s 54 cannot

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

71,897/- out\nof total expenses of Rs 11,45,980/- without considering the facts that it was\nnot claimed by the assessee appellant\n8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1,03,03,005/-\nand

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

71,897/- out\nof total expenses of Rs 11,45,980/- without considering the facts that it was\nnot claimed by the assessee appellant .\n8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1,03,03,005/-\nand

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

71 (Delhi)/[2014] 267 CTR 305 (Delhi) 18-03-2014) 30 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR Accordingly this ground of appeal is hereby partly allowed.’’ 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the submitted that the depreciation is a statutory allowance and it is given since the value of assets are diminishing according

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house hold expenses, it is noticed that there are 05\nmembers. The assessee has shown only income of Rs.1,75,710/- and\nagriculture income of Rs.34,750/-, thus total income comes to\nRs.2,10,460/-. Looking to the members of family, such declared income is\nvery nominal and only for running day to day expenses. Based on that\ndiscussion

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

House Property and Income from Other Sources. That during the year under consideration the appellant sold a capital asset (piece of land) for Rs. 1,29,00,788/- (which was purchased in the year 2006) and shown Income from capital gain of Rs. 19,075/- (after reducing indexed cost of purchase & improvement exp. and after claiming exemption

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

71-97 2,57,51,065 b) 9-11-2016 to 15-11-2016 97-98 2,38,850 Total Sales of Cheja Stone in Cash 2,59,89,915 2. Fire Wood Cash sale 01-04-2016 to 31-10-2016 61-64 18,81,000 24 Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3. Steel

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

71,31,212.00 7,05,65,860.00 1,18,81,660.00 22.02.2019 (154 order) 19.12.2018 7 2016-2017 4,08,

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. M/S. MAN PRAKSH TALKIES PVT. LTD, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

71,225/- & the long term capital gain of Rs. 66,76,744/- are separate issues (raised vide separate grounds of appeal) and these are different from the issue raised in ground no. 3 of Department appeal for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. In view of the above, as the ground no. 2 for A.Y. 2009-10 has not been adjudicated upon