ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

SMT. VANITA TEKRIWAL,FLAT NO.715, SUN N MOON BELVEDERE PARK, SWAGE FARM CIRCLE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain on sales of shares of RSBPL against which exemption u/s 54F of Rs.37,78,270/- is claimed (PB 4-6). In support of this fact the assessee has filed the affidavit (PB 59). However, inspite of all these facts available on record, the AO has solely relied on the system generated return which contains number

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Long Term Capital Gain. 2.6 During the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the assessee filed various documents to verify the calculation of Capital gain. Proofs of Purchase, payment of instalments, TDS

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

TDS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED @ 1% U/S 194IA TOTAL 10822354/- 962681/- 11785035/- 1.6 Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer ignored the genuine difficulties of the assessee and, held that assessee has failed in depositing the unused amount by 31/07/2016 in `Capital Gains Account Scheme’ 13 Indira Giri vs. ITO (CGAS) and considered the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs only as eligible

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Long term Capital Gains declared before claiming deduction u/s 54 of ITA 5. Further the reference of date of 22.06.2008 which was the date of demise of Mother is again misconceived since the asset was received in family partition and/or Will of father who died on 12.08.1987 which land he ( Late Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur Father) acquired

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Long term Capital Gains declared before claiming deduction u/s 54 of ITA 5. Further the reference of date of 22.06.2008 which was the date of demise of Mother is again misconceived since the asset was received in family partition and/or Will of father who died on 12.08.1987 which land he ( Late Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur Father) acquired

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

long term capital gains to tax. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Assessing officer and has upheld the denial of exemption. Against the said findings and denial of exemption, the assessee is now in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that it was represented by the bank

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

long term lease would character as deemed sale and thus no TDS could be deducted on the lease charges paid for it. With this it can be said that in the present case when the assessee leased out the property to the RFC for minimum period of 99 years, it is deemed sale i.e. the ownership right would be transferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

capital gains, the loss increases to Rs. 3,57,56,342/- The A.O, issued a notice proposing rejection of the books of accounts, highlighting discrepancies like- -non maintenance of stock register; -no day to day quantity details; -some discrepancies pointed out in the Audit report related to debtors & creditors etc. -claim of depreciation on 'Mata Sukh' project but no income

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

long term capital gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Long Term Capital Gain. The addition so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the Cost of Acquisition