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

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

reassessment under ss.147,\r\n148 and 148A and in light of the sanction under s.151A, adherence has to be\r\nmade to algorithm based random assessing system—Impugned notices issued\r\nby JAO are quashed and set aside, with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh\r\nnotices in compliance of the CBDT notification dt. 29th March, 2022, by keeping

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)

54F of the Act is restricted to the amount of Rs.45,34,469/-. Accordingly the assessment was completed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the assessment the assessee has carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised before the ld. CIT(A), the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

reassessment\norder passed by Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 is\nbad in law—Assessee's grounds allowed.\nPrayer: Thus in view of the above facts, circumstances and the legal position of\nlaw the proceedings so initiated and assessment so passed may kindly be\nquashed.\n4. The Id. AO has denied the exemption

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

section 54F of the Income Tax Act,1961, hence the deduction u/s 54F is allowable and therefore the Ld.AO erred in not allowing deduction u/s 54F and calculating wrong capital gain, hence the addition of Rs.2,87,673/- needs to be deleted. But the Ld.CIT(A) without considering the facts and circumstances and without considering the arguments and submissions made

MANOHAR LAL ALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

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

section 54F of the Act in the house property purchased. The registered sales and purchase documents were placed on record. Further one more reason for reassessment

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings were provided to the assessee vide Show Cause Notice (SCN) DIN & Letter No: 6 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/104321016(1) dated 27.05.2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to show a cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,05,57,000/- paid to PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd. in cash shall

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

section 263 of the Act is clearly\napplicable and it is clear that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order\nafter making enquiries for verification which ought to have been made in this case.\nHowever, we find that the Pr. CIT has not mentioned in the show-cause notice issued\nunder section 263 that he is going to invoke

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

54F at Rs. 46,78,000/- and deduction under sec. 54EC at Rs. 37,00,000/-. As per the AO, the deductions claimed by the assessee are not admissible in absence of evidences. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 23.03.2018 after recording proper reasons and satisfaction of competent authority, which was duly served

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. ”. Vide copy of reasons recorded (PB19). If so then how the ld. Pr. CIT can assume the jurisdiction on the issue other then reasons recorded u/s 148 in this preposition we would

BALU RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

Bench: the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) because of the reasons that the copies of these documents could not be obtained by the assessee. The ld AR further submitted that these documents are crucial material for just decision of the appeal. On the contrary, the ld. DR strongly contested this application for leading the additional evidences and submitted that the documents now filed record are not public documents and are self styled documents. Therefore, none of these documents are required

54F of the LT Act, it was required on the part of the appellant to bring on record authentic documentary evidences to establish that the appellant has within a period of three years after the date of the transfer of impugned land has constructed one residential house in India, the cost of which (new asset) is of Rs.25