SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off line sale to save STT The beneficiary (an Individual) holds the share for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt under section 10(38) of the Income tax Act, 1961. In the meantime the operators rig the price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT SAINI , AJMER

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

260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain and Income from other sources. Notices were issued from time and time and in responses to these notices the assessee filed the CO No. 26 & 27/JP/2022 DCIT vs. Anoop Kumar Gupta details. The seized books of account and other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA, AJMER

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

260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain and Income from other sources. Notices were issued from time and time and in responses to these notices the assessee filed the CO No. 26 & 27/JP/2022 DCIT vs. Anoop Kumar Gupta details. The seized books of account and other

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV BAGARIA, JAIPUR

260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) in IT APPEAL NOS, 810 TO 815 86 922 TO 926 (AHD.) OF 2015 & others - Tula! 11 Appeals ror A Ys 2006-07 & 2008-09 Date of Hearing : 20/10/2016 / Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2016 held as under: 13 Shri Gaurav Bagaria, Jaipur. Section 10(38), read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260/- was available to the assessee and excess capital gain of Rs.74,86,601/- was taxable. Therefore, it is factually apparent that the A.O. has not verified the above issues while completing the assessment. Accordingly, it appears that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. act 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18 on 01.08.2019 is erroneous

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

transfer.\nTherefore, section 52(2) had no application to the present case and the\nITO could have no reason to believe that any part of the income of the\nassessee had escaped assessment so as to justify the issue of a notice\nunder section 148.\"\n1.1.8.2CIT v. K.K. Enterprises [2009] 178 Taxman 187 (Raj.) it was held\nas under

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

260 (2015) (Rajasthan) and the departmental appeal has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. (g) It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in various cases, having similar and identical facts of the assessee, have allowed the appeal of the assessee and rejected departmental appeal on the same issue

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 50C were not attracted in the case of lease hold property, and the assessee was found to have taken said land on lease of 99 years, and as such, it was not a capital asset. Sale of shares of KAPPAC PHARMA 9. Coming to the only issue of sale of KAPPAC Pharma, argued before us, during the year under

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

transfer of long-term capital asset being equity shares of company shall not be form part of total income if securities transaction tax is applicable on such transaction. In the present case, the share in which Appellant was invested were long term capital assets and it is clearly evident from the contract notes that securities transaction tax was charged

JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260\nNote No. 2.15-: Cost Of Material Consumed\nParticulars\n(Amount in)\nFor the year ended For the year ended\n31st March 2012\n31st March 2011\nA. Raw Material\nOpening Stock\nOld Gold\nSilver\nCopper\nAdd: Purchase\n24 Kt. Fine Gold\nOld Gold\nSilver\nTotal A\n196,902\n231,610\n4,957\n433,469\n292

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

260/- including long term capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land and building. The assessee sold agricultural land along with construction on it for a consideration of Rs. 9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 21.08.2016. The assessee has computed the capital gain after claiming deduction on account of purchase of land and construction of building