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)

482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323] .)” (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 Vs M/S Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view, such a decision, which might be plausible

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

482/- per sq. yards. As per this agreement Rs. 5 lakhs paid in cash. Why the same is not added on your total income. In response to same, assessee filed the explanation before the AO which is reproduced at page 2 to 4 of the assessment order. However, the AO considered and examined the reply of the assessee

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

house property which is\nagain not been disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under\nsection 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which\nhas been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has\nbeen deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Housing Board, Vs. Jodhpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUIPP5565B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), 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. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,36,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for 7 ITA 233 & 234/JP/2020_ Rajesh Natani Vs ITO limited purposes and necessary notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed its reply and finally

SHRI RAJESH NATANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), 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. 233 & 234/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2014-15 & 2015-16 Rajesh Natani, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. A-2, Subhash Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ward-4(5), Jaipur-302016 (Raj) Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn 5961 E Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri G.N. Sharma (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 17/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively.

house property and interest also. Return of income was electronically filed on 16/12/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,36,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS for 7 ITA 233 & 234/JP/2020_ Rajesh Natani Vs ITO limited purposes and necessary notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed its reply and finally

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

house property and income from business or profession as proprietor of M/s. Mittal Enterprises. The return u/s 139(1) of the Act was filed on 25-10-2004 by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 1,51,100/-. Search and seizure operations were carried out on 27-08-2008 on residential and business premises of the assessee. The return

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

house through which they had transacted the genuine sale of shares. Moreover no any reference of any of the assessee was made in any manner in any of the statements, that any of them has approached him for providing accommodation entry. Further none of the broker had stated the name of the broker M/s MSBPL as allegedly involved in providing

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic provisions by invoking the provisions of Section 92BA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic provisions by invoking the provisions of Section 92BA