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

268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. The circular is specifically mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals. 5. Subject

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

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

268A(1) of the I T Act, CBDT has recently issued Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed Rs. 20 lacs. The circular is specifically mentioned to be applicable for all pending appeals. 5. Subject

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

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

1. deleting the addition of Rs. 45,15,529/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of bogus claim of LTCG u/s 10(38) and addition of Rs. 90,311/- made u/s 69C of the I.T. Act for 2 ITO, Ward-2, KIshangarh vs. Smt. Parul Jain, Rajvilla, Kishangarh commission payment, without appreciating the facts

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

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

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.”

1. Whether on the facts and 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

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.”

1. Whether on the facts and 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

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

1)(v). 2 ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ms Kanhaiya Lal Rameshwar Das, Kota (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,11,905/- made by AO on account of disallowance of telephone & Mobile expenses.” 2. The ld. D/R has submitted that

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

1 SCC 673, as to what would be substantial question of law, only demolishes the case of the appellant herein because on principles, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment as contained in Para 19 to 23 thereof, present is not a case where the finding of the Tribunal suffers from ignorance

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