SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

139(4) and thus deduction u/s 54B claimed by the assessee was fully allowable. (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the genuine reasons which delayed the investment in the purchase of new asset and thereby erred in disallowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the agricultural land

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

4 the assessee challenges the confirmation of addition Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation. Record reveals that the assessee suo moto in the assessment proceeding filed the revised computation and paid the tax on the income offered in the revised computation of income. The assessee in the revised computation of income filed declared the additional

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4 the assessee challenges the confirmation of addition Rs. 6,45,810/- surrendered by the assessee in revised computation. Record reveals that the assessee suo moto in the assessment proceeding filed the revised computation and paid the tax on the income offered in the revised computation of income. The assessee in the revised computation of income filed declared the additional

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

139 as per details given above. It is reiterated that provisions of section 68 are not applicable on the sale transaction recorded in the books of account as sales are already part of the income which is already credited in the Profit and loss account. 4.7. Sections 68 creates deeming fictions, whereby certain amounts which are not considered

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 of your statement recorded on 7-12-2016 wherein it was\nreplied by you that cash receipts were issued to all the customers on receipt of\nadvances on 8-11-2016 Please confirm the same?\nAns. After generation of cash receipts on 8th and 9th of Nov.2016 simultaneously\nthe cash receipts were issued to the respective seven customers

SANJAY LUNIA,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(1), AJMER

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

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

139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698B, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income- tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i) The amount of income-tax calculated

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

4), Jaipur [\nfor short AO ]. Ld. AO passed an order against the assessee on\n23.12.2019 as per provisions of section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [ for\nshort Act ].\n2.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -\n\"1.\nIn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless\nAppeal Center/ld

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and also failed to provide name, PAN, address of the persons with whom the loans were said to be taken." 4. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

Section 1534 of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition is required to be made.” Following the above discussion based on judicial principles it is held that the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of enhanced agriculture income made Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT by the appellant in the assessment proceedings u/s 153A which