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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House\nproperty, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of\nassessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of\n“Purchase value of property less than the value

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. VEENA GOAYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur and the assessee is also a director in the said company. The shares were allotted on face value of Rs. 10/- only. Whereas as per the section 56(2)(vii)(c) the value of the share at the time of allotment is of Rs. 20.37, thus it can clearly be concluded that the shares were issued

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

1(i) and 2(ii) the assessee challenges the proceeding \ninitiated against the assessee under the provision of section 153A and \nsubmit that the same should have been done u/s.153C of the Act. That \nissue has already been discussed at length by the ld. CIT(A) while dealing \nwith the appeal of the assessee. Records reveal that during the search

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

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, 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. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

house property, professional income and income from other source. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for the reason of "Purchase of property". During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee asking various details w.r.t. the purchase of property

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

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

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

House, Vs. Ward 7(3) Sector-32, Jaipur. Gurgaon. (Haryana) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCH 7688 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate & Shri Utkarsh Shara, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

house property as\nis also evident from the assessment order passed u/s 153A wherein\nthere is no mention about any incriminating material found for the\nrelevant assessment year even no mention in the AO remand report.\n15\nITA NO. 469 & 470/JP/2024\nDCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN\n2.\nSECOND REASON : NO ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS

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

vii. The concerned authority vide order dated 08-09-2021 transferred jurisdiction from Kolkata to Ajmer.(PB Page 66-68 & 69-71) by rejecting assessee company objections. viii. The concerned authority (Ld. PCIT, Kolkata), despite repeated requests, did not provided any information or documents or warrant suggesting that assessee company case is related with the search proceedings conducted at “Saini

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

56,070/- (i.e. Rs. 32,76,000/ cost of new house and Rs. 1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, 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 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, 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 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, 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 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on account of his half share in a property in Delhi and some interest income. The AO therefore concluded that the Assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts for the AY in question. The AO noted that in a statement dated 24th September 2007, recorded by the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, the Assessee denied knowledge