LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

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

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

house property at 82, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Kota owned by assessee’s wife Smt. Nikita Dhariwal under the income from other sources by making various incorrect and irrelevant observations. 3.2 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return on 23.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.4,86,710/- after claiming deduction under Chapter

SHRI SHYAM GIDWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the explanation so submitted in support of source of deposit of Rs 6 lacs cannot be accepted and is hereby dismissed

292B of the IT Act." 14. In the instant case, as against provisions of section 151(1) read with proviso thereto, the provisions of section 151(2) are applicable as no assessment has been completed earlier either u/s 143(3) or section 147 and in terms of mandatory condition prescribed under section 151(2), the Assessing officer has duly sought

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

house at Rs.1,72,78,488/- as against Rs.3,00,00,000/- originally valued by the DVO and adopted by the by ld. AO. 13. In the aforesaid factual background of the matter, the ld AR submitted that in ground no. 1 , the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the assessment (set aside

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

house at Rs.1,72,78,488/- as against Rs.3,00,00,000/- originally valued by the DVO and adopted by the by ld. AO. 13. In the aforesaid factual background of the matter, the ld AR submitted that in ground no. 1 , the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the assessment (set aside

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

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

292B of the Act, is untenable, having regard to the phraseology used in paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular. 19. The object and purpose of the issuance of the 2019 Circular, as indicated hereinabove, inter alia, was to create an audit trail. Therefore, the communication relating to assessments, appeals, orders, etcetera which find mention in paragraph

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

house of 1600 sq feet. The appellant also filed copies of\nbills/letters in support of the claim of construction expenditure. The details are as under:\nSr.No\nNature of work done\nAmount\nName\nvendor\nof Date\n1.\nPlumbing work\n80,000\nSalman\nsanitary work\n16.08.2011\n2.\nFurniture\n80,000\nDilip Rana\n02.9.2011\n3.\nCeiling plastering\n98,000\nPanna Sharma

SUBHASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

house property and other sources. The assessee for the year under consideration filed return of income u/s 139(1) declaring total income of Rs. 1,07,53,630/- which included Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 94,72,909/- earned on sale of agricultural land which was jointly held in 2 Shri Subhash Sharma, Jaipur. equal share with his brother

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

house\nproperty for Rs 69.90 Lacs vide a registered sale deed executed on 28.07.2017 (and i.e.\nthe very information also in possession of the AO). Thus, the money of Rs 69.90 Lacs\nwas not source less and the AO himself was of the view that this was a transaction of\nsale of immovable property hence there is no question

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd. and remaining amount through bank account.\nThereafter, the AO noted that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.4,28,000/-\nin the bank account on the different dates. The AO asked the source of cash deposit\nin the bank account. In response thereto, the assessee has stated that the same was\nout of his and family

LATE SH. BANWARI LAL SOOTHWAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. SHYAM LAL SOOTHWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

properties belong to M/s Rani Dadi Buildcon Pvt.\nLtd. who has incorporated the same in their sales and\niii)\nsimilar issue was raised in AY 2012-13 where no\naddition was made. He has further erred in not allowing\nthe deduction for indexed cost of acquisition in\ncomputing the long term capital gain and by substituting\nthe actual sales consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

292B and, therefore, the same is an invalid appeal liable to be dismissed. However, the appeal dismissed being invalid in limini due to the reason of impleading a deceased assessee cannot take away the right of the appellant to file a fresh appeal against the legal heir of the deceased assessee subject to the provisions of limitation and leave taken