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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

reopening wherein Assessing Officer recorded\nthat assessee has not filed return and in fact, return was filed by assessee, re-assessment were\nheld as invalid by co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, in case of Rinakumar A. Shah ( ITA No.\n172/AHD/2017 holding that Assessing Officer may have dispute with respect to computation of\nsuch capital gain

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 property that was purchased by assessee constituted one flat or two flats for purpose of exemption under section 54F was examined by Assessing Officer in original assessment, Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO reopening

MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

capital gains and interest, finding them to have merit.", "result": "Remanded", "sections": [ "148", "234A", "234B", "234C", "250", "2(14)(iii)" ], "issues": "Whether the ex parte order passed by NFAC was justified without proper service of notice. Whether the reopening of assessment

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the case and since we are dealing with the facts of the case. This ground becomes adjudicative in nature. 15. The fact of the case in ITA No. 02/Jodh/2022 is similar to the case in ITA No. 01/Jodh/2022 so far as ground no. 2 is concerned and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reopening of the case and since we are dealing with the facts of the case. This ground becomes adjudicative in nature. 15. The fact of the case in ITA No. 02/Jodh/2022 is similar to the case in ITA No. 01/Jodh/2022 so far as ground no. 2 is concerned and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

reopening was provide on 04.10.2016. 4. In the assessment proceeding the ld. AO observed that the assessee has worked out the capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopened, however, no incriminating\ndocuments whatsoever, were recovered from the assessee for the year under\nconsideration. Therefore, being an unabated assessment, the original assessment\ncannot be disturbed. The AO made the addition treating the long term capital gain

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

capital gains adopting their share (25%) in the above said sale consideration. The AO noticed that the stamp authority has determined the DLC value at Rs.1.44 crores. Hence, the AO held that the assessees herein should have adopted the sale consideration as Rs.1.44 crores as per provisions of Section 50C of the Act. Hence, the AO reopened the 3 assessment

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reopened u/s 148. The addition was made related to deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5 lac u/s 68 and the capital gain for sale of land amount to Rs.56,58,164/-. The assessee claimed that the land is agricultural,so, no capital gain tax will be applicable. The ld. AO in assessment

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reopened the case against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That the approval from PCIT is taken by stating wrong facts by the Ld. A.O. 4. That the approval by PCIT u/s 151 has been granted in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. 5. That the Iearned CIT(A) wrongly upheld the addition made

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 PROCEEDINGS That the assessment was completed under section

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and the assessment\nproceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B had been completed on 31.3.2022 at the\nassessed income of Rs. 4,61,700/-d accepting the returned income.\nFurther, it is found that the assessee has invested in purchase of plots in\nAdeshwar Nagar Developed by Sh. Mahendra Kankaria. The details of\npayment made

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

assessment order\nthrough which assessee explained the things and confusion in the mind of the AO.\nBut AO did not find satisfy with the reply of the assessee. He was of the view that\nthe Unbilled sales is unaccounted sales of the assessee which is supported by\nseized material as against the contention that it has recognized the revenue