SHRI JOHRI LAL SODHANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

457 (Del) (HC) The facts of this case are that a search operation u/s 132 was conducted at business/residential premises of the assessee. The materials seized in search revealed that assessee purchased one commercial property at Gurgaon for Rs. 17,55,000/- fetching a rental income of Rs. 7.02 lakhs which is stated to be disproportionally high in comparison with

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

M/S. ARSH VISION C/O- M/S. MAHENDRA GARGIEYA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES & TAX CONSULTANTS, 537-539, 5TH FLOOR, MAHIMA'S TRINITY, NEAR JYOTI RAO PHULE COLLEGE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, AJMER, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

Bench: Us.

457 and Shri Mangal Singh Palsania vs. ACIT (in ITA No. 53/JP/2014 vide order dated 31.03.2016). 6. Regarding the matter relating to interest on FDR of Rs. 3,36,620/- not included while calculating allowable remuneration to partners u/s 40(b), it was submitted that the assessee during the revisionary proceeding has stated that the said FDRs were given

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee, Sanjay Goyal & Narayan Goyal at Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. The source of the expenditure is stated to be out of TP Dala

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee, Sanjay Goyal & Narayan Goyal at Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. The source of the expenditure is stated to be out of TP Dala

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee, Sanjay Goyal & Narayan Goyal at Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. The source of the expenditure is stated to be out of TP Dala

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee, Sanjay Goyal & Narayan Goyal at Vidhyadhar Nagar Jaipur. The source of the expenditure is stated to be out of TP Dala

SHRI SHRINIVAS TRIPATHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SMT. SAROJ DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SHRI KAILASH CHAND GEHLOT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3) JAIPUR

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

ASHA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SHRI SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(3), JAIPUR

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SHRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAUSA

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SENGWA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, AJMER

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

457, Ajmer Road, Rajni Vihar, Ward 5(3), Heerapura Power House, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ACSPG 2298 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 08/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear: 2009-10. cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Chawla Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o MahendraGargieya& Associates Ward 6(3), Advocates & Tax Consultants, Jaipur

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Properties relied on by the AO was on different facts in so far as in the case of Diamond Investment Flats were sold by the assessee to the related parties, however, in the case 88 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT of above all the flats were sold by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Properties relied on by the AO was on different facts in so far as in the case of Diamond Investment Flats were sold by the assessee to the related parties, however, in the case 88 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT of above all the flats were sold by the assessee

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Properties relied on by the AO was on different facts in so far as in the case of Diamond Investment Flats were sold by the assessee to the related parties, however, in the case 88 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT of above all the flats were sold by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Properties relied on by the AO was on different facts in so far as in the case of Diamond Investment Flats were sold by the assessee to the related parties, however, in the case 88 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT of above all the flats were sold by the assessee