SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Id. AO has erred in re- opening the case of the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, being not in accordance with the provisions of Section 151 of Income Tax Act 1961. The action

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

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

54F of the Act. The AO completed the reassessment and assessed the capital gain for the year under consideration without giving the benefit of section

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

VIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Ground As Under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner Has Not Accorded Proper Satisfaction In Terms Of Section 151 For Reopening Of Assessment U/ 148.” 3. Since, The Additional Ground Is Legal In Nature & Was Raised In Respect Of The Approval Granted By The Pr. Cit U/S 151 Of The Act

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in ground no. 1 of the assessee appeal. 7 Shri Vimal Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO 9. Ground no. 2 is regarding disallowance of deduction U/s 54F of the Act. The assessee has computed the capital gain from the transfer of the land in question at Rs. 5,20,742/- which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

54F to calculate deduction in cases of mix house property as the section itself speaks of deduction on the basis of the house property either being residential or other than residential. The ld. AO on his own tried to apply a new mechanism i.e. to take proportionate exemption on the basis of cost of property, which do not find

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

BHAGWAN SAHAI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the Act, by wrongly observing that the construction of residential property has not been completed by the stipulated date. Thus, the action of ld. CIT(A) deserves to be held bad in law and the addition of Rs. 27,41,000/- made by way of such disallowance deserves to be deleted. 3.1. That

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

54F of Rs. 12,78,400/-. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority at Rs. 1,95,15,472/-. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee that there was no transfer by this sale deed, the property was already gifted to the society. The Assessing Officer, therefore, computed long

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

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

reassessment proceedings under provision of section 147 of the Act as this is bad in law and liable to be quashed.’’ ITA No. 282/JP/2016 – Revenue, A.Y. 2012-13 ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance u/s 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 made by the on account

PADAM CHAND DHADDA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reassessment proceedings against the assessee appellant and thus deserves to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not deciding the grounds on merits of the case and he ought to have decided the case on merits of the case as well otherwise it will lead

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

KALYAN PRASAD AGARWAL,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT, BHARATPUR

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

Section 143(3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 24,93,750/-. 3. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. ITA 321/JP/2016_ 3 Kalyan Prasad Agarwal Vs ACIT 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. In the ground No. 1 of appeal, the assessee has challenged the reassessment proceedings, in this regard

MANNA LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment the AO assess the capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land in the hands of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena and the income on account of deposits made in the bank accounts of the sons and daughter in law of Smt. Dhapu Devi Meena. The assessees challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) and contended