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

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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

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

2,65,99,000 \nbeing the alleged cash transaction between M/s. Millenium Build Home P. \nLtd and M/s Nevralji Estate P. Ltd.\n11. As is evident from the facts of the case narrated herein above that \ndisputes arise because the revenue collected some documents in that \nsearch and those documents were considering being the nature of \nincriminating and that

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

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.”

viii) CIT v/s Hero Cycles (SC) 228 ITR 463 (ix) CIT v/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (SC) 157 CTR 249 (x) C.I.T v/s Ramco International 332 ITR 306 (P&H) (xi) C.I.T v/s Bhaskar Mitter (Cal) 73 TAXMAN 437 (xii) C.I.T v/s Rajasthan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. (Raj) 100 DTR 152 (xiii) Wipro

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

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

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)

viii) ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of 3F Industries Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Andhra Pradesh I.T.A. No.54/Viz/2019 Dated: 15-12-2022 2022 (12) TMI 846 ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. (Case law Paper Book page 64-70) TP Adjustment-provisions of section 92BA(i) relating to expenditure referred in section

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)

viii) ITAT Visakhapatnam in the case of 3F Industries Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Andhra Pradesh I.T.A. No.54/Viz/2019 Dated: 15-12-2022 2022 (12) TMI 846 ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. (Case law Paper Book page 64-70) TP Adjustment-provisions of section 92BA(i) relating to expenditure referred in section

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)

viii) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Brigade Enterprises Ltd[2021] 124 taxmann.com 237 (copy at PB page 190-196) it was held that Where Assessing Officer madedisallowanceofassessee'sclaimundersection14A, read with rule 8D(2)(ii) on ground that overdraft facility was directly used by assessee for making tax exempt investments but Commissioner

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii) Dina Nath v. CIT 204 ITR 667 (J&K) (ix) Jayanthi Talkies Distributors v. CIT 120 ITR 576 (Mad)" 11. The only argument raised by the department is by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya Vs Shanabhai P Patel (1987) 33 Taxman 229 (SC). It was submitted that service

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

viii) It may be mentioned that in the case of Ashok Syal Vs CIT [2012] 24 taxmann.com 274 (Punj. and Har,), their lordship analyzed the provisions of section 54 of the Act and observed as under: "7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the exemption under Section 54 of the Act is available on transfer of a long

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

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

VIII. Since the assessee was fulfilling all the conditions, as contained in section 54F, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F. As on the date of sale assessee was knowing that she had already invested, in residential house property, a sum which was more than the sale proceeds and, therefore, the assessee claimed deduction of the entire amount of capital gain

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed his original

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

viii) Further on perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the addition is based on perusal of the financials disclosed by the above companies which itself is part of their income tax returns and therefore cannot be considered to constitute any incriminating evidence to justify the aforesaid addition. (ix) The A.O. has placed rc Boasts con the decision

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

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 Gupta Jain Group” of Ajmer. Your Honour it is requested to kindly take note of the fact that concerned authority itself was un-sure about correct jurisdiction

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi)/[2015] 230 Taxman 567 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) [27-01-2015] held that where the appellant had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bonafide and it was not borne out in any contentions raised by the appellant, additions made after adjusting expenditure were justified. The relevant para of the judgements