SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

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

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976. 5. Judgments of Honble Supreme Court

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976. 5. Judgments of Honble Supreme Court

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

4. Regarding the objection of the appellant against the common warrant of authorisation, in addition to the finding in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that the same is expressly covered by the section 292CC of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1976. 5. Judgments of Honble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 months from October, 2016 to January,2017 were taken from the IT cell of hospital. On verification of details of X- rays done during the period it is noted that worked out to 3839 ( including IPD & OPD). Whereas on perusal of the register produced by the X-ray department of the hospital, the total Xray films used during

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

139 ITR 916 (MP). It is not necessary that there should be a series of transactions, both of purchase and of sale, a single transaction of purchase and sale outside the assessee's line of business may constitute adventure in the nature of trade. Neither repetition nor continuity of similar transaction is necessary to constitute a transaction and adventure