HIGHRISE PROPCON PVT. LTD.(NOW AS N M FINANCIERS PVT. LTD.),JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

68 of the IT Act in respect of two share applicants and hence the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. 3. The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s appeal is less than 20 lacs which

ITO, JAIPUR vs. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

68 of the IT Act in respect of two share applicants and hence the tax effect in the revenue’s appeal is not exceeding Rs. 20,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018. 3. The ld. D/R has fairly submitted that the tax effect involved in the Revenue’s appeal is less than 20 lacs which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S CLASSIC ALUMINUM WORKS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee But The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Is Not Exceeding Rs. 20 Lacs As Per The Cbdt

68 of the I.T. Act on account of accommodation entries of Rs. 48,00,000/- obtained in the form of share application money? 2) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but the tax effect

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

68, deletion of addition of Rs. 12,957/- made by the AO under section 36(1)(va) and deletion of addition of Rs. 25,72,579/- made by the AO under section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SMT VIJESH DEVI, JAIPUR

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

268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued CircularNo.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015(F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the ITA 941/JP/2012 & 36/JP/2013_ 3 DCIT Vs. Vijesh Devi authorities below departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs.10 lacs. The circular is specifically mentioned to be applicable

ACIT, ALWAR vs. DEEPAK JAIN, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and the C

68 of IT Act on account of purchase of stock which was found excess and unrecorded/unexplained, during the survey conducted u/s 133A of the IT Act, 1961.” Grounds of assessee’s C.O.: “1. That ld. CIT (Appeals), Alwar erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 43,588/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of IT Act even when the interest was paid

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KANHAIYAL LAL RAMESHWAR DASS, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,206/- less than Rs 20 lacs which is prescribed threshold limit in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued in supersession of its earlier Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMAN KATTA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.” Grounds For The A.Y. 2011-12 “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,00,610/- & Rs. 27,50,000/- Made By The A.O. U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant Craves Leave To Reserve The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant craves leave to reserve the right to amend, modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability of the appeals

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMAN KATTA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.” Grounds For The A.Y. 2011-12 “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,00,610/- & Rs. 27,50,000/- Made By The A.O. U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Appellant Craves Leave To Reserve The Right To Amend, Modify, Alter Add Or Forego Any Ground(S) Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant craves leave to reserve the right to amend, modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has raised an objection of maintainability of the appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), AJMER vs. SMT. MADHU DEVI FATEHPURIA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of bogus claim of LTCG u/s 10(38) and addition of Rs. 3,17,975/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act for commission payment, without appreciating the facts of the case 2 ITO, Ward-2(1), Ajmer vs. Smt. Madhu Devi Fatepuria, Ajmer and modus operandi of the scheme which clearly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KISHANGARH vs. SMT. PARUL JAIN, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,380/- less than Rs 20 lacs which is prescribed threshold limit in terms of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued in supersession of its earlier Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015. 3. We have heard the ld DR and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the demand/ tax effect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), , AJMER vs. ASHISH AGARWAL & SONS (HUF), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Raised An Objection Of Maintainability Of The Appeal Of The Revenue Due To The Tax Effect Not Exceeding Rs. 20 Lacs As Per The Cbdt Circle No. 3 Of 2018 Dated 11Th July

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and on account of commission payment of Rs. 1,16,669/- without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee wrongly claimed exemption U/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of long term capital gain on shares and surrender thereof for taxation, was not voluntarily made during the course

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), AJMER vs. SMT. STUTI AGARWAL, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and on account of commission payment of Rs. 1,09,151/- without appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee wrongly claimed exemption U/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of long term capital gain on shares and surrender thereof for taxation, was not voluntarily made during the course