RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

capital gains, but in the assessment order the AO has made addition u/s 68. This will be violation of the binding order of the jurisdictional High Court and will be a case of contempt of court. (vii) The assessee has not received any amount or paid any amount in respect of the regular and recorded shares trading with Seema Securities

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains Exemption, in case of investment in residential house (Reassessment) Assessment year 2007-08- Where issue as to whether

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gain which the assessee has not disputed and thus so far as the assessment is concerned same is concluded by the order of the ld. 14 Smt. Jaya Mogra CIT(A) dated 26.03.2013. Thus, in the appellate proceeding the additions of Rs 39.70 lac on account of unexplained credits in bank accounts, was deleted

CHANCHAL KUMARI JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.213/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Chanchal Kumari Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 143-A/A, Shastri Nagar Ward-3, Bhilwara Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpj-8347-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

reassessment proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information that the assessee procured bogus short-term capital gain (STCG

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. 4. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings an invalid........” iv] On the identical facts the Hon’ble ITAT Agar Bench in the case of Shri. Raj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) ITA No. 408/Agra/2018 Date of Order : 22/03/2019 "29. The text of the reasons recorded do proves that virtually there has been no application of mind by the learned Assessing officer so as to form

SHRI YASIN KHAN,CHURU vs. ITO,WARD-1, CHURU

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Though Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.74/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sh. Yasin Khan Income Tax Officerward-1 बनाम/ Ward No.25 Churu Churu, Rajasthan-331 001. Vs. Jaipur, Rajasthan-331 011. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cakpk-2504-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

capital gains. The value as shown in the registry was Rs.2 Lacs but it was valued at Rs.39.44 Lacs by DIG, stamps. 2.2 The assessee submitted that it had no source of income and the land was not situated in notified area. Hence, no return of income was filed in response to reassessment

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee was served with notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 25/03/2015 the assessment was completed under section 148/143(3) vide order dated 09/12/2015. LEGAL POINTS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 -VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT

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

Capital gains—Applicability of first proviso to s. 12B of 1922 Act—\nProviso to s. 12B not attracted unless there is evidence that more consideration than\nwhat was stated in the document of transfer was received—Onus in this regard is on\nRevenue—Emphasis in those provisions is on consideration declared or disclosed by the\nassessee as distinguished from

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the NFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the AO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that the report which was required to be submitted online was submitted late and therefore the mandatory condition of the section was not satisfied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the NFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the AO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that the report which was required to be submitted online was submitted late and therefore the mandatory condition of the section was not satisfied

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the NFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the AO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that the report which was required to be submitted online was submitted late and therefore the mandatory condition of the section was not satisfied