PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee, before ld. AO, duly placed on record the following documents vide reply to ld. AO dated 26.09.2016: 3 Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur • Sale Deed dated 24.11.2014, registered on 30.12.2014 • Purchase Deed dated 10.03.2014 which was containing the details of payment made prior to one year from the date of sale • Possession

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee, before ld. AO, duly placed on record the following documents vide reply to ld. AO dated 26.09.2016: 3 Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur • Sale Deed dated 24.11.2014, registered on 30.12.2014 • Purchase Deed dated 10.03.2014 which was containing the details of payment made prior to one year from the date of sale • Possession

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property Rs. 1,84,800/- Income from Short term Capital Gain Rs. 5,43,882/- Income from other sources Rs. 72,282/- Add: Long term Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

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)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

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.

282, Rule 127, Art. 226] 1.6 In the instant case also, the Notice for Enablement of Communication window. (notice intimating start of appellate proceedings by NFAC) was issued on 01 11 02022. On the said date, the Primary email id registered in the PAN database was nekiwala71@gmail.com, but the NFAC sent the hearing notices on secondary email id instead

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

house property chargeable under section 22. 17 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co-operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.) in which the Court observed as under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

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

282 denied the deduction. The Hon’ble ITAT after reproducing section 80P(2)(a)(i) at Para 6 of the order, analysing the expression ‘attributable to’ at Para 7 & 8 of the order and distinguishing the judgment of Supreme Court at Para 9 of the order, at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. In the instant case

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, 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. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

house property, professional income and income from other source. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for the reason of "Purchase of property". During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee asking various details w.r.t. the purchase of property

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatchof an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resourcesoutside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when adigitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered incomputer resources outside the control

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

house property chargeable under section 22.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumer co-operative society\nmeans a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal\ncorporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or\ncantoriment\n10\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited

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)

housing market. As a professional intermediary, the broker earns a commission for facilitating successful transactions. During a thorough survey, the assessee-appellant provided comprehensive statements that clearly outlined the nature of each transaction and the pivotal role played in connecting the parties, i.e., the buyers & sellers. These statements were bolstered by meticulous ledger records, receipt books, and formal agreements

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

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

282 (SC) wherein it is held that "The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 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

MAHESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property (loss H.P. income, adjusted again Salary income Rs. (-) 5,78,838/- 3. Income from other sources Rs. 21,990/- Rs. 61,46,078/- Total income of assessee Rs. 61,46,078/- Less: Deduction under chapter VIA Rs. 2,43,584/- Net Taxable salary income Rs. 59,24,484/- Rounded off Rs. 59,24,480/- Loss from LTCG

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

house property situated at 53. Siyaram Nagar, Shyopur Road, Sanganer. However, perusal of bank loan certificate shows that loan of Rs. 50 lakhs was taken in joint names of Bhartesh, Neeraj, Kamlesh and Rajender Jain for the property situated at B-07, Jagan nath puri Yojna, Shyopur Road, Sanganer. Thus, the interest was wrongly allowed by the AO. It appears