WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

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

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

house property, other sources which had had already been shown and taxed under these income separately in the respective heads vide ITR itself. Thus the ld. AO taxed the income of Rs. 11,56,302/- twice or double one under the business income and second under the respective heads or sources of income. Only due to accounting or entries

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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)

397 (Bombay) (DC 9-12),it was held that the “Section 15, read with sections 148A and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Salaries – Chargeable as (Reassessment) – Assessment year 2019-20 – Assessee was an individual assessed to income from salary, house property

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

section 153C of the Act qua the necessity to establish the correlation the document wise with the assessment eyars in question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune Vs Singhad Technical Education Society (reported in (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 290} … Para 10- The Tribunal further noted that the said Mr T John Rajasekhar

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

397/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG for short) by rejecting exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The addition so made and confirmed by the CIT(A), being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, kindly be deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO further erred in law as well

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

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

397 (Bombay), it was\nheld that the\n“Section 15, read with sections 148A and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Salaries\nChargeable as (Reassessment) – Assessment year 2019-20 – Assessee was an individual\nassessed to income from salary, house property

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32\nSOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are\neligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not\ndeduction u/s 80IA.\n50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable\nHigh courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not\nspecify any particular claim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: "Section 153A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of search or requisition (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2008-09 Whether once proceedings under section 153A is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment in respect of six years

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

house property, income from other sources and loss on long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee has further disclosed profit from trading in commodity exchange and has also filed evidence in support of his claim. The assessing authority has added back Rs. 7 crores only on the ground that at the time of survey

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

house property, income from other sources and loss on long-term capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee has further disclosed profit from trading in commodity exchange and has also filed evidence in support of his claim. The assessing authority has added back Rs. 7 crores only on the ground that at the time of survey

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

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 during the search. He has referred to the various documents produced by the assessee before

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

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 during the search. He has referred to the various documents produced by the assessee before