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)

364 “A large number of judicial pronouncements made by this Court leave no manner of doubt that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine does not mean that the reasoning of the judgment of the High Court against which the Special Leave Petition had been filed before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merges

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

364 (exempt under Section 10(38)) o Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL): " Sale: Rs. 48,87,600/- " Purchase: Rs. 48,90,900/- " Loss: Rs. 3,300/- Thus, the net capital gain should be Rs. 83, 22,064/-. Additionally, relying on statements regarding accommodation entries from unrelated persons is inappropriate. The AO's failure to distinguish between LTCG and STCL

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

364 ITR 31 (SC) Claim of benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 r.w.s. 13 of the Act – Public religious trust – Whether the Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent- trust is a public religious trust and is outside the purview of Section 13(1)(b) and eligible for 24 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION

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

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

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

property has been purchased in the name of wife. Shri Om Prakash Rajoria vs ITO, Ward- 1(1), Alwar • Shri BhagwanSwaroop Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer ITA No. 263/JP/2014. “11. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The first aspect of this issue is regarding the investment made by the assessee

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

Property business can not have frequent transactions and sometimes deal may not materialize for a long time. There was a transaction in AY 2014-15 but the assessee’s profit was below 8% and she preferred to declare 8% profit under the presumptive scheme. Closing Stock continued to be the same during

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.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, income from interest and other sources. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act on 19.12.2014 in case of one Shri D.P. Sehgal, Jaipur. During the said search and seizure proceedings, a letter signed by the assessee in respect of the loan of Rs. 15 crores from Shri D.P. Sehgal along with

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

House Property and Income from Other Sources. That during the year under consideration the appellant sold a capital asset (piece of land) for Rs. 1,29,00,788/- (which was purchased in the year 2006) and shown Income from capital gain of Rs. 19,075/- (after reducing indexed cost of purchase & improvement exp. and after claiming exemption

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property.\nAlthough not engaged in regular share trading, the assessee has invested\nin shares of companies.\nii.\nThe assessee claimed a long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption under\nSection 10(38) for the sale of shares of Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd.\nThe gain claimed was 27,87,561/-.\niii.\nDetails provided indicate that the assessee purchased shares

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

housing loan repayment and Rs. 11,375/- lic premium paid for his son LIC premium. The assessee has claimed income of Rs. 1,55,600/- from his agricultural land which was considered at Rs. 1,00,000 and 55,600/- was considered as income of the assessee. Since there has been information in this documents based on which the assessment