AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act. The main contention of the assessee challenging the order passed under section 147 read with section 144 is that the notice under section 143(2) was not served upon the assessee. We find that the AO has issued number of notices, however, the assessee never responded

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

reassessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act. The main contention of the assessee challenging the order passed under section 147 read with section 144 is that the notice under section 143(2) was not served upon the assessee. We find that the AO has issued number of notices, however, the assessee never responded

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur. The assessee

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C is untenable

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C is untenable

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

80C of Rs. 9,400/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 and again by notice dated 12.08.2016. The assessee objected to initiation of penalty proceedings as well as levy of penalty proposed by the AO, however, could not succeed. The AO imposed the penalty

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

reassessment under section 147 was completed under section 144 of the IT Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and objected against the reopening of the assessment but could not succeed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the AO has reopened the assessment based on incorrect information

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

80C, 80D and 80ITA of Rs. 1,02,520/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. After considering the fact of the case and details filed by the assessee, the returned income as declared by the assessee accepted in an order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.06.2016. Later on vide order dated 03.07.2018, the Assessing Officer rectified

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

80C of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A), who after considering submissions partly allowed the appeal thereby, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on account of computation of long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,73,43,456/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal

TEJENDER PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result ITA No. 1147/JP/2024 (A

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 51,960/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur, who in turn confirmed the order of the AO vide order dated: 28.06.2019. The assessee being further aggrieved with this order of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur preferred an appeal before the coordinate

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and assessee also paid some payments during F.Y. 2009-10 through PNB Bank to LIC, Max etc. at Rs.84,889/-. The AO further noted that the assessee stated that cash balance of Rs.1,47,000/- was paid out of his brokerage income already shown in ITR then as to how it is possible that assessee