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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

68,250/-. Search and seizure proceedings were conducted at the residential and business premises of ‘Gupta group of Sri Ganganagar & Bikaner’ on 11.08.2016. Notices were issued and assessee filed her reply. The A.O. after making detailed enquiry and verification passed assessment order on 20/12/2018 assessing total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,39,63,530/- by making various disallowances

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment proceedings either at the time

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

68,55,255/- The Ld PCIT took the view that the sale of properties mentioned in (a) and (b) above have not been reported by the assessee in his return of income. With regard to unsecured loan mentioned in (c) above, the Ld PCIT took Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur the view that the assessee has furnished list

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

68,55,255/- The Ld PCIT took the view that the sale of properties mentioned in (a) and (b) above have not been reported by the assessee in his return of income. With regard to unsecured loan mentioned in (c) above, the Ld PCIT took Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur the view that the assessee has furnished list