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 or (ii

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, 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

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, 1, Tara Nagar, Ward 3(2), Opp. Orbit Mall, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AADCN 0285 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

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

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

house property chargeable under section 22.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumer co-operative society\nmeans a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal\ncorporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or\ncantoriment\n10\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited

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

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

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

Housing Scheme Policy, 2009.\nAll the above evidences establish beyond doubt that M/s Nav Bharat Nirman \nCo. (JV) has taken loan from R. K. Verma for the purpose of its business and the \ntransactions are duly reflected in its regular books of accounts, which have been \nduly audited. The ITRs have been filed and the same have been accepted

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ii) if the "object" of the trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ii) if the "object" of the trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ii) if the "object" of the trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant

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.”

56,282/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 16656282/- Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 19411456 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 12.02.2013. Khasra No. 1175 2) Rs. 1,87,11,456/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 19411456/- Total 56881546 48 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO It is clear from the above table that the sale

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

56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961.\n5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A)\nhas erred in confirming the action of the learned AO that the assessee accepted\nRs.75,00,000/- as an advance from M/s Jagdish health care P Limited in relation\nto transfer of a capital

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,54,784/- as taxable income of assessee and taxed life membership fees of Rs. 26,41,000/- holding it as normal income and disallowed expenses totaling to Rs. 78,681/-. The present appeal is against said denial of exemption u/s 11 & 12 and subjecting to tax the entire surplus of association as taxable and other additions so made

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

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

ii) in respect of the interest deposit in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/- and deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest from cooperative banks of Rs. 2,65,09,092/-. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee in toto, on the ground that the assessee is not in the business of banking

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

ii) in respect of the interest deposit in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/- and deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) in respect of the interest from cooperative banks of Rs. 2,65,09,092/-. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee in toto, on the ground that the assessee is not in the business of banking

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

Housing Board and the Authority will be made by the State Government effective from the date to be fixed by it; k. to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property, movable or immovable, as it may deem necessary; l. to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangements with any person or organization as the Authority may deem necessary for performing

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

Housing Board and the Authority will be made by the State Government effective from the date to be fixed by it; k. to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of property, movable or immovable, as it may deem necessary; l. to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangements with any person or organization as the Authority may deem necessary for performing