M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

house property. Ld. DR also filed a detailed written submission and case laws in support of her contention to support the orders of the lower authority. The written submission filed by the ld. DR reads as follows: It is most respectfully submitted that the revenue is placing reliance on Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

house property loss of Rs. 1,62,673/- against short term capital gains of Rs. 1,70,618/- as per section 71 of the Act. But ld. AO adjusted such loss against Business Income instead of short-term capital gain and accordingly the demand of Rs. 18,260

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property but is considered as Agricultural income u/s 2(1A) and therefore, benefit of section cannot be availed on sale of agricultural land having constructed house thereon by ignoring Explanation 2 to section 2(1A). 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 54F while disallowing the claim of deduction

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

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

house property u/s 54 Rs. 36,61,600/-” The AO noticed that as per sale deed the stamp valuation authority had assessed the value of the property at Rs. 5,76,54,492/- for the purpose of stamp duty. However, this was finally assessed when the assessee went in appeal before the Additional Collector (Stamp

NISHA BHRADWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3 (3), JAIPUR

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

260/-. The case was selected for Limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.09.2018, to the assessee on ITBA, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 09.02.2019, 24.04.2019 & 29.08.2019, In response to notices, the assessee has not furnished any compliance except to application

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

properties and investment therein. The very initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 therefore was bad in law being based on incorrect facts. The Hon’ble ITAT is therefore requested to quash the assessment order and alternatively delete the addition of Rs, 9,60,750 In view of the position the additions made under section 69C is unlawful, illegal and deserves

MANOHAR LAL ALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

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

property purchased. The registered sales and purchase documents were placed on record. Further one more reason for reassessment was provided regarding sales of house at 101/161, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. In reply of that assessee submitted that registration during the year 21.05.2023 for Rs. 11,000/- and sold that registration for Rs. 21,000/- on dated 10.06.2004. the sales consideration shown

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.12.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.12.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 31.12.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

260/- as detailed in assessment order although this will be allowed as deduction u/s 54B as upheld in following cases. (i) CIT vs Gurnam Singh, 327 ITR 278 (2008), P&H (ii) ITO vs Saraswati Ramanathan, 300 ITR 410 (2007), ITAT Del. (iii) Tribunal Judgement of Bench ‘1’ (2010) – copy of judgement has been submitted earlier with

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 was carried out at the residential and business premises of “ Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group” on 28.07.2016, of which the assessee is one of the members covered therein. During the course of search, the assessee surrendered an income of Rs. 40,00,000/- as admitted in the statement recorded under section

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

260 Taxman 326 (Karnataka) [20-11- 2018] In the present case also, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of those liabilities by citing credible evidence. Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in his books of account would not vouch the genuineness of such liabilities. The language in the section 68 unequivocally makes it clear that where