SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,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

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

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

68,716/- as against the declared sale consideration and difference has further narrowed down, we deem it necessary to examine the said contention. 47. In this regard, it is noted that the legislature has inserted third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act, as per which, where the difference between stamp value and the actual consideration is 5

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

68,716/- as against the declared sale consideration and difference has further narrowed down, we deem it necessary to examine the said contention. 47. In this regard, it is noted that the legislature has inserted third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Act, as per which, where the difference between stamp value and the actual consideration is 5

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

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

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

5-04-2025 for condonation of delay\nwith following prayers.\n''The delay in filing the present appeal has occurred due to genuine\nand unavoidable circumstances as detailed herein below.\n17.08.2023 First Appeal Order passed by the Hon'ble CIT, Appeals.\n20.09.2023 Ld. AO's Order giving effect to the Appellate order of CIT (A) dated\n17.08.2023 with DIN & Letter

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

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)

section 50C cannot be invoked. Therefore, full value of consideration in this case has to be taken at Rs. 42.25 lacs. The decisions relied on by the assessee in its written submissions also support our above finding. Therefore, we allow the Ground No. 1.1 of the assessee’s appeal.” 5 Ahmed Ali Khan, Tonk. The ld. A/R further relied

SHYAM KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), JAIPUR

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

68,48,688/-. The AO accordingly, proposed to adopt full value consideration by invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and consequently the addition on account of long term capital gain was made by the AO by taking deemed full value consideration as determined by the Additional Commissioner (Stamp). The assessee challenged the action

KALURAM BUNKAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

68,02,400/-. 4. The assessee craves his right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing. “ Ground No. 1 relates to reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that the assessee does

LATE SMT. SEEMA MUKHERJEE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

50C value of Plot No. 14, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Station Road, Jaipur of Rs.5,68,452/- and applied cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 and made addition of long term capital gain of Rs.5,20,577/-, which is not justified. 5 The Learned C.I.T. (A) & A.O. has not considered the fact on record, that property Plot of land

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

5 MACRO PROPERTIES PVT LTD. VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Assessing Officer arbitrarily applied the provisions of Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- made

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

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