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.”

section 2(14)(iii) are applicable to urban agricultural land and not to rural agricultural land. In view of the aforesaid position of law which is discussed further in detail in the following paragraphs it is submitted that the revenue cannot avail benefit on account of any mistake on the part of the assessee in filing return of income

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 14 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) K. A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon'ble court stated that where a stereotype

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

transfer and Rs. 4.25 lacs through cheque rejection. On going through return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2018-19, it is noticed that income from above transaction has not been included in ITR. The ld. AO noted that in the assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessee failed to provide true and correct information / material

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. JT. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer” as such between two closely related persons, which is a condition precedent, so as to validly invoke sec.269SS or 269 for that reason. Also kindly refer Muthoot M. George Brothers v/s ACIT (1993) 47 TTJ 434 (Coch) (DPB 25-34), Mahesh Prasad Soni v/s ACIT (2004) 86 TTJ 815 (Jab.) and ACIT v/s Gujarat Ambuja Proteins

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 132(4) of the Act during the search, the\nappellant, under the pressure and circumstances of the search, mistakenly\nsurrendered Rs.11,00,000/- as undisclosed income, stating that the payment\nwas made out of undisclosed sources. Subsequently, upon verification of the\nbooks of account, the appellant realized that sufficient cash balance was\navailable in the regular books of account

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that Section

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

269/- taking into consideration the value u/s 50C (DLC) of Rs. 85,99,470/-, Further, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 74,25,181/-taking net consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Based on that set of fact the ld. AO noted that there was an excess claim allowed amounting to Rs. 34,25,398/- and thereby

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of taxable income in the hand of the buyer, simply because there is a wide gap between the actual consideration and fair market value. For the above 10 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

269, Gall No 04 Raja Park Jaipur regarding division of share in the above referred residence house. We are also submitting herewith the statement of affaire of Shri Mohit Poddar for the year ended 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017 (audited) where he has shown his share in property 12.5% only likewise we are also submitted the of affair of Smt. Pratima Poddar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

transferred from the lenders' respective bank accounts,\nwhich is a significant factor in establishing their capacity to lend.\n13.2 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Gopal Krishan v. ACIT, ITA\nNo. 892/JP/2019, underscores this principle by affirming that when the source of\nfunds can be traced back to the bank accounts of the lenders, the onus of\nproving their

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

269 273 Addl. Commissioner (Audit) 3. Copy letter dated 19.02.2021 to the ld. PCIT issued by the ld. 274 276 ACIT. 4. Copy letter dated 18.03.2021 to the ld. CIT(Audit) issued by 277 284 the ld. ACIT, Circle-1. 29 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 30 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 31 Pinkcity Jewelhouse

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transfer of amount is found to be recorded by the AO in the assessment order. The addition is made because as per AO it appears that the actual value is recorded in the excel sheet. It is further stated that Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat also averred that any transaction related to sale and purchase of land related to company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transfer of amount is found to be recorded by the AO in the assessment order. The addition is made because as per AO it appears that the actual value is recorded in the excel sheet. It is further stated that Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat also averred that any transaction related to sale and purchase of land related to company

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transfer of amount is found to be recorded by the AO in the assessment order. The addition is made because as per AO it appears that the actual value is recorded in the excel sheet. It is further stated that Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat also averred that any transaction related to sale and purchase of land related to company

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

pricing etc. and item quantitative control on staff. In the tax audit report no quantitative details are mentioned. This list is in the nature of undisclosed records or incriminating material unearthed during the survey. (xiv) The appellant has claimed that the valuation should have been by the official valuers for each item separately of the taking into consideration the exact