SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

house property and other sources. The advances have been given for purchasing of land which clearly suggests that the assessee was into this business which he has also explained in response to question no.3. 8.3 It was further submitted that it is important to note that the income declared by the assessee has been accepted

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

26,000/-, Rs. 21,967/-. However, directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income of house property. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. Ground no. 1 is against confirming the addition of Rs. 14,11,556/- as income from the house property. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

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.”

26. Similarly in the case of Mohan Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2015) 173 TTJ 634 (Chd): In the case of the assessee, the period under section 139(4) would be expiring on 31.03,.2011. Since the assessee made deposit of Rs. 50 lacs under Capital Gain Accounts Scheme on 14.10.2010. Therefore, it was deposited within the period

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. issued under section 153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year

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

iii) 65constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property

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)

26 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR the benefits by reopening the assessments - even the department has its own share of interpretations, leading to repetitive proceedings – Decided in favour of assessee. f. Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS SANTOKBA DURLABHJI TRUST FUND Exemption u/s 11 - Contravention

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

iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice for the requirement or order being erroneous. iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

iii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has notified the municipality of Jaipur as the areas up to distance of 8 Kms from municipal limits in all directions. The reference to municipal limit or the limit of cantonment board in the schedule to this notification is to the limits as existing on the date on which the notification

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

26,677/- under clause 1(a) of that section Smt. Aparna Agarwal, Kota. despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares which has resulted Long Term Capital Gains are duly recorded

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

26 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. despite the amendment of Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect and by virtue of the amendment, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty by properly recording the satisfaction for the same? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deciding

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

26,52,624/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of the Act more so when :- a) The appellant was not having any undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAB of the Act, therefore, no penalty under this section can be imposed on assessee. b) The penalty was levied by drawing the inference only from the statement recorded

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

26 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. 3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb

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

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of 26 Shri Ritesh Agarwal, Jaipur. accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary