SHRI JAISINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

54B hence no tax was paid by him. (Relevant pages of statement recorded on 19.11.2016 are attached at PB Page Nos. 6 - 8). 8 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT These submissions of assessee shows that he does not understand the manner in which income is calculated and ITR is filed and what is taxable and what

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

section…….” In view of the facts and the circumstances as stated above, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 54B, the disallowance and the addition made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 3,68

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68,69,69A,69B and 69D. The ld. AO has further noted that vide circular No. 3/2017 20 Jagdish Kumar Arora and 11/2019 the CBDT has cleared that the position of the applicability of this section, in which it is clearly mentioned that this amendments take effect from 01.04.2017 and will accordingly apply from A.Y. 2017-18 and subsequent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

68. The jurisdictional AO would have to firstly be satisfied that the material received is likely to have a bearing on or impact the total income of years or years which may form part of the block of six or ten AYs' and thereafter proceed to place the assessee on notice under Section 153C. The power to undertake such

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

54B. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 5.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case not deciding the ground by alleging that the same did not arise from

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017 and framed order on 28.12.2017. Contention of the Assessee: Assessee submitted that AO enquired on unsecured loans prior to 14.12.2017, whereas he got approval on 14.12.2017 and it is against the provision of the ACT. Held:That the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction

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)

section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) Assessment vear 2008-09 Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources

NITIN PAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

section 54B was restricted to Rs. 4,79,333/- as shown in the original return of income. The income of the assessee was accordingly computed determining the long term capital gain of Rs. 20,39,357/- as against Rs. 3,68

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

68,450/- late by six months. The assessee sold six plots for sale consideration of Rs.17,20,000/- during previous year. After claiming indexation cost of acquisition of Rs.62,800/-, indexation cost of construction of Rs.3,11,500/-, deduction u/s 54B of Rs.13,45,700/- declared LTCG at Rs Nil. It is also noted that the stamp valuation authority valued

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

68,855/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 103,06,141/- 14274996/- F Capital Gain liable for Tax NIL 3. Construction of the flat was delayed by builder and finally the registration and possession of the flat was completed on 08/07/2021. Encashment of the cheques by builder was also delayed accordingly.(Please see the registered deed