DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

Section 147. Sec. 147 cannot be invoked for making fishing or roving enquiries in the matter. 9. The learned AO has failed in passing any speaking order on the specific issue raised by the assessee in his Objections- as to how the AO considered both the houses shown in the Balance Sheet as Residential Houses - which is in direct violation

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

147 is bad in law-Assessee's grounds\r\nallowed.\r\nThus when on the very basis of issuance of notice u/s 148/148A(B)/148(d) no\r\naddition has been made then no other addition/disallowance can be made. The\r\nother addition or disallowance can be made only with the addition/ disallowance\r\nproposed in the notice u/s 148/148A

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)

54F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. The bench noted thatthe assessee retired from Rajasthan State Electricity Board from the post of lineman in the year 1996. No return of income was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act as his income was below the taxable limit. The assessee expired

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 u/s

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 u/s

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.”

147 of the account and arbitrarily dismissed the ground of appeal. Ground No.3:- During the course of re-assessment proceedings the copy of computation of income (PB-2) stating the entire calculation of negtative capital gain of Rs.2,02,940/- on the sale of the captioned immovable property alongwith all the evidences of sale and cost of acquisition were

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

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

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

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

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)

147 of the Act by taking appropriate approval from the office of the PCIT- 3, Jaipur. The case of the assessee was transferred in pursuance 3 Manohar Lal Alwani vs.. ITO of order passed u/s 127 of the Act. Fresh notices were issued on various dates. The assessee submitted only part details, therefore, show cause notice dated

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

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

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the CIT(IT)-Delhi-1 by raising the following grounds of appeal; “1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence

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