SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been arrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla, popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case. 1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that loose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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)

2. In order to ensure that maximum objectivity is maintained in converting a case falling under “Limited Scrutiny” into a “Complete Scrutiny” case, the matter has been further examined and in partial modification to Para 3(d) of the earlier order dated 29.12.2015, Board hereby lays down that while proposing to take up “Complete Scrutiny” in a case which

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the AO has called for the valuation report and in compliance thereto, the Valuation Officer has sent his Valuation report wherein FMV of the property situated at Plot No. 55A & 55B, Near Central Jail, Agra Road, Jaipur as on May, 2007 has been determined

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the AO has called for the valuation report and in compliance thereto, the Valuation Officer has sent his Valuation report wherein FMV of the property situated at Plot No. 55A & 55B, Near Central Jail, Agra Road, Jaipur as on May, 2007 has been determined

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

50C(2) of the Act comes into play only when the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property. However, in the case of the appellant, no such claim was made before the AO. The provision of section 43CA of the Act specifically

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

2 (supra), under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO\nerred in law while applying section 54F with reference to 50C. To this\neffect, the submissions as made by the Id. AR of the assessee is\nreproduced as under:-\n\"While computing exemption u/s 54F, the actual sale consideration/net\nconsideration is to be considered

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2. The notice u/s 148 has to stand or fall based on the reasons recorded. The assessing officer, while issuing notice u/s 148 has not applied his own mind. The notice u/s 148 has been issued in mechanical manner. Without examining the so called information and without bringing on records the evidence/rationale from the information, the A.O. could not have

AHMED ALI KHAN,TONK vs. ITO, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 (Bombay HC) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO 11 ITR – Trib. 0120 (ITAT Mumbai) The ld. A/R therefore, submitted that in view of the above judicial pronouncements the application of provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1061 is unjustified and hence the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) deserves

ABDUL AZIZ,DUDU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), LAL KOTHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C. The AO completed\nthe assessment at Rs.25,75,600/- u/s 144 assessing the income as LTCG.\n4. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an\nappeal before the CIT(A). The assessee adduced additional evidence under Rule-\n46A before the CIT(A). The assessee pleaded before the CIT (A) to accept these\nevidences as the same

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

68. In para 23 of the decision in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra), it was observed as under: "23. This court is of opinion that the ITAT's findings do not reveal any fundamental error, calling for correction. The inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income were premised on the materials found as well as the statements recorded by the assessees