SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

section can be invoke where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for the any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation. 6. Explanation & Evidence not Appreciated :- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in not appreciating explanation

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

30) Moreover, Section 151A contemplates framing of the scheme by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, even for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 in the case of re-assessment or sanction for issue of such notice under Section 151, with the aim to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

30) Moreover, Section 151A contemplates framing of the scheme by the Central Government by notification in the official Gazette, even for the purpose of issuance of notice under Section 148 in the case of re-assessment or sanction for issue of such notice under Section 151, with the aim to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for\nshort \"Act\"] by the ACIT / DCIT, Circle-5, Jaipur [ for short AO].\n\n2.\nITA No.33/JP/2025\nShree Durga Jewellers vs. ACIT\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumnutates of the case as well

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

68 (Allahabad)/[2021] 438 ITR 657 (Allahabad)\n[10-02-2020) held that Where Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract/subcontract income but failed to add interest income shown in books as\nother income, subsequently, on basis of audit objection, Assessing Officer was\njustified in invoking section 147/148 and reassessing 'interest income\nHon'ble Supreme Court

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

30. The ld AR further submitted that the main objects of the society are setting up of educational institutions and operating them for the promotion of education and there are other stipulated objectives, most of which are related to promotion and spreading of systematic education to the students. It was submitted that in terms of objectives mentioned at serial

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 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 4.25. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

30,87,700/-.” 27. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findingsof the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is reproduced as under:- “Ground No. 2(c) 52 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT This ground relates to addition of Rs.30,87,700/- under section 68

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)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess) without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. 2

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) the Act is presumed that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search are true. Similar presumption drawn 292C the Act for the purpose of assessment. Section 292C reads

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) the Act is presumed that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search are true. Similar presumption drawn 292C the Act for the purpose of assessment. Section 292C reads

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) the Act is presumed that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search are true. Similar presumption drawn 292C the Act for the purpose of assessment. Section 292C reads

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

2. It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 132(4A) the Act is presumed that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search are true. Similar presumption drawn 292C the Act for the purpose of assessment. Section 292C reads

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section

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.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

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)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. In the circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.16,52,000/- made by ld. AO without appreciating the details and evidences filed, deserves to be deleted