AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year for scientific research related

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered loss, same was not declared in return of income. The case of the assessee

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house properties situated in India and Income from business. For the relevant 3 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. previous year, assessee was a resident in India, in accordance with section 6 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, in accordance with section 5 read with section 4 and 6, assessee offered entire income earned by him, whether in India or outside India

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

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

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

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri Raghav

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee for the year under consideration filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 2,64,980/- and in response to notice u/s 153A filed return of income declaring same income of Rs. 2,64,980/-. In the return of income assessee declared long term capital gain of Rs. 1

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

property, M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others business or profession and other sources during the year under consideration. 6. The main issues involved in this case as found by the AO in the assessment proceedings is in relation to the alleged long term capital gain added u/s 68 of the Act and commission paid for acquiring such long-term