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)

54B 4534469 Net Long Term Capital Gain Nil The sale consideration of Rs.2,08,79,000 in F.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.8,35,11,625 (3,00,00,000+ 3,77,00,000+ 1,50,00,000+ 7,21,000) in F.Y. 2013-14 is duly tallied with the sale agreement 30 ITA No. 94 & CO. No. 22/JPR/2025 Smt. Kamla

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

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

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

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)

1. That the AO has erred on facts and in law by traveling beyond the issue of reassessment u/s 147, if the addition does not sustain on the ground of reopening then the action u/s 154 is unwarranted and addition is not sustainable in law. Kindly quash the entire proceedings u/s 154 of the Act as the case is reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. That the Authorities below have in confirming the proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 2. That the prejudice to the above, the authorities below further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash payment.” 2 Shri Jaideep Singh