ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses permissible

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

Properties Versus TheDcit, Central Circle-1, Mumbai, 2014 (12) TMI 800 Assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation as there was an inadvertent mistake at the office of the Chartered Accountant - by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the assessee cannot have any ulterior purpose - No prudent person

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,90,11,000 [PB 27-32]. The resultant Capital Gains were claimed exempt, on account of purchase of immovable property situated at Raja Park in the immediately preceding year, under section 54F of the IT Act, 1961. VII. Section 54F provides that if any long term capital asset (except residential house property) is sold and the assessee had purchased

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- 9 Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur. “ Thereafter, the case was transferred to the office of the undersigned from

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)

Section 263. In this regard, we draw strength from the following case laws. 1. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.-Trib) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd.[2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib) 3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. 4. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench In the present case

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to 8 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material found

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

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material found

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material 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

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material found

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

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

263 (Delhi) as well as in case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi). The ld. A/R has also referred to a series of decisions on the point that the penalty under section 271AAB cannot be imposed merely on the surrender made under section 132(4) in the absence of any incriminating material found

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

1 of section 263 is not applicable to Assessment Year (2011-12), under consideration. We hold that the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 is bad in law and as such it is quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed. • Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 8 TMI 673 [Compilation 14-17] has held

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

263 CTR 153 (Karnataka) [13-12-2012])\nThe object behind the enactment of section 271(1)(c) read with the Explanations\nindicates that the said section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss\nof revenue. The penalty under that provision is a civil liability. Wilful concealment\nis not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

263, alleging that the ld. AO failed to tax Rs. 1,44,35,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69. The ld. PCIT further proposed invoking Section 115BBE to levy a higher tax rate on the alleged unexplained income. 8. That the ld. PCIT’s assertion was that the AO did not adequately verify the ownership and source

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on thedate of sale. C1.lt was categorically submitted before Id. PCIT that assessee was having only one residential property. The property situated at Raghunandan Vihar was just a plot of land. The same was let out to the neighbor for storing in building material. Copy of Conveyance Deed being Gift Deed in favour of the assessee was duly

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

house, then instead of the capital gain, the income would be charged in terms of provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 54. As per Sub-Section (2), if the amount of capital gains is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the CIT(IT)-Delhi-1 by raising the following grounds of appeal; “1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence