RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment made under section 147 of the Act. The AO has given the details of various notices issued to the assessee at page 2 of the impugned order as under :- Sr. Notice/Letter dated Mode of service Compliance No. 1. 29.12.2009 Notice u/s 148 By hand Non-compliance 2. 13.07.2010 Notice u/s 142(1) By hand to Anju Non-compliance (Grand

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." The material on record has been considered. The satisfaction note does not refer to incriminating seized material from search on other person which would be having a bearing on the determination of total income of the appellant. The addition made

SHRI GHASI RAM GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

reassessed stamp duty value as full value of consideration instead of assessed stamp duty valuation as on date of sale which is against the provisions of section 50C. The addition to that extent i.e. Rs. 1200000.00 (9840000.00 – 8640000.00) is arbitrary and deserve to be deleted. Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur 5. On the facts and circumstances

SHRI GHASI LAL GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

reassessed stamp duty value as full value of consideration instead of assessed stamp duty valuation as on date of sale which is against the provisions of section 50C. The addition to that extent i.e. Rs. 1200000.00 (9840000.00 – 8640000.00) is arbitrary and deserve to be deleted. Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur 5. On the facts and circumstances

JANNO,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

54B in respect of purchase of agricultural land for Rs. 5,20,050/-. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ‘’4.5 I have perused the assessment order as well as remand report of the AO, submissions made including judicial citations given therein and find

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) Assessment vear 2008-09 Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources of transactions

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

54B for purchase of another agricultural land. Thereafter, notice U/s 263 was issued by the ITO(Technical) for and on behalf of ld Pr CIT, Alwar dated 06.10.2017 and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. Pr. CIT has cancelled the assessment order passed by the AO U/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 with a direction

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

reassessment and assessed the capital gain for the year under consideration without giving the benefit of section 54F of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the capital gain arose on account of transfer of the plot of land in the assessment year

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment not assessment. 2. That the AO has erred on facts and in law by invoking the Section 154 for rectification of mistake apparent on record as the issue involved are not covered under mistake apparent on record under the scope of 154 of the Act. Kindly quash the rectification order u/s 154 or delete the addition. 3.1 Brief facts

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by AO which was under challenge before this Tribunal. The new legal plea does not require investigation into factual aspects before either accepting or rejecting the contentions. The appellant submits that the additional ground is purely legal in character and goes to the root of the matter; and therefore, the same may be admitted for adjudication

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings has been initiated on mere change of opinion is incorrect as mere production of books of accounts or other evidence from which the AO could have with due diligence discovered the material evidence does not necessarily amount to disclosure within meaning of proviso to section 147 of the Act. (f) AO has issued notice

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

54B. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 5.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case not deciding the ground by alleging that the same did not arise from