SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

56,420/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,85,39,399/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

House property, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration. Return of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on 13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp

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.

56,000. The capital gain came to Rs. 1,40,000. In the 14 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR original return, the assessee claimed that as he has purchased the immovable property against the consideration received on the sale of house property on April 26, 1991, therefore, no capital gain tax is attracted. Thereafter, he filed

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)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

property, income from business and profession and interest from partnership firm. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Mundra & Jain Marble, 16, Jhalawar Road, Kota on 13-08-2013. During the course of search and seizure action, certain loose papers were found and seized marked as Annexure

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

56(2)(vii)(C) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- under section 69 of the act, 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,98,888/- (3,48,888 -1,50,000). 2.5 During the assessment proceedings, it was explained vide letter dated 5th December, 2011 that a part of the housing loan has been used for giving advances to other parties. The ld. AO himself accepted the fact that the housing loan was not fully

SHRI RAJA RAM MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1]41]00]000@& nh vfxze jkf'k ¼ii½ 26&A laxzke dkWyksuh] t;iqj ds fuekZ.k = 31]77]000@& esa ¼iii½ vf/kd ik;k x;k LVkWd = 85]79]654@& dqy v?kksf’kr vk; = 2]58]56]454@& tSlk eSusa mijksDr esa dgk fd eSa mDr v?kksf’kr vk; in ns; dj nsus

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property, income from capital Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT\n(Inv) wing-2 Jaipur. In the matter detailed statements of husband of the\nassessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

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

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which