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

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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

260/-. The case\nwas selected for Limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on\n21.09.2018, to the assessee on ITBA, which was duly served upon the\nassessee. Notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the\nassessee on 09.02.2019, 24.04.2019 & 29.08.2019, In response to notices,\nthe assessee has not furnished any compliance except to application

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

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

YOGESH DAS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house property' at Rs. 3,27,965/- and Income from other sources' at Rs. 10,40,557/- and it has also computed long term capital loss of Rs. 5,30,681/-on account of sale of two immovable properties (sold on 05.12.2012 and 25.03.2013) during the year under consideration. (ii) On the basis of the reasons as reproduced

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

LATE SH. VIJAY KUMAR JOHARI (THROUGH L/H SMT. HEMA JOHARI, SH. VAIBHAV JOHARI & SH. VARUN JOHARI) ,63, OM NIVAS, MASJID WALI GALI, 22 GODAM, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

House property (-) 9,05,676 Income from Business and Profession 29,07,723 Income from Other sources 46,751 Gross Total Income 20,48,798 Deductions (Chapter VI-A) 1,77,538 Total Income 18,71,260/- 2.1. AO issued show cause notice dated 24.12.2019 to show cause as to why income surrendered on account of excess stock found during