ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and section 115BBE are not applicable in this case being the addition made under section 56(2)(viib), however, the ld. CIT (A) has not accepted the valuation of the shares as per the Valuation Report of the Registered Valuer whereby the value was determined by adopting the fair market value of the assets of the assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary co-operative society bank as the meaning of co-operative society. Therefore, a Co-operative Society Bank would be included in the words co-operative society'. 10. Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co- operative Society Bank. Therefore, according

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary co-operative society bank as the meaning of co-operative society. Therefore, a Co-operative Society Bank would be included in the words co-operative society'. 10. Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co- operative Society Bank. Therefore, according

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, defines a primary co-operative society bank as the meaning of co-operative society. Therefore, a Co-operative Society Bank would be included in the words co-operative society'. 10. Admittedly, the interest which the assessee respondent had earned was from a Co- operative Society Bank. Therefore, according

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (viii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item A to E of S. 14, such income has to be assessed under the residuary

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

x) investment in immovable property. Explanation.—"Immovable property" does not include any machinery or plant (other than machinery or plant installed in a building for the convenient occupation of the building) even though attached to, or permanently fastened to, anything attached to the earth;] (xi) deposits with the Industrial Development Bank of India established under the Industrial Development Bank

ANNU AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDIAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” The same was duly replied vide letter dated ‘Nil’ and dated 12.11.2018 (PB 14-19), on all the queries raised. The assesee provided complete name and PAN No of all the three shareholders. To prove their genuineness, the assesee also submitted copies of ITR acknowledgements

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act, which has absolutely no application to the facts of the case and it is incorrect. The ld. AR further submitted that section 56(2)(vii)(b) was applicable from assessment year 2013-14. In this regard, CBDT Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29-1-2015 is clear on the issue in which it has been held

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

68 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959 and the Jodhpur Development Act, explain that the UIT / JDA have been entrusted by the State Government with the control or management of “Local Fund” and therefore, it clearly qualifies to be the local authority as defined in section 10(20) of I.T. Act 1961. These provisions also reveal that

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

68 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959 and the Jodhpur Development Act, explain that the UIT / JDA have been entrusted by the State Government with the control or management of “Local Fund” and therefore, it clearly qualifies to be the local authority as defined in section 10(20) of I.T. Act 1961. These provisions also reveal that

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001. 2. That a Survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by Income Tax Department officials on 28.08.2018 at the business premises of assessee. That the statement of appellant is recorded 2 times. 1st statement was 3. recorded on 28.08.2018 (i.e. during survey) and second statement was recorded on 04.09.2018 (i.e. Post Survey

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

56(2)(viib) of the Act redundant and nugatory. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature especially when the amendments in the two sections are brought in at the same time. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'D' in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- IX, New Delhi v. Ravnet Solutions (P.) Ltd. 93 taxmann.com 59 (Delhi - Trib.) held

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,614 Audit fees 50,000 50,000 Preliminary 5,440 5,440 expenses written off Misc. Expenses 13,174 13,174 Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,614 Audit fees 50,000 50,000 Preliminary 5,440 5,440 expenses written off Misc. Expenses 13,174 13,174 Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before