ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Capital Gain A/c No. 61192561563\ng. It is observed that AO in his assessment order, stated that amount paid through the\nbanking channel was verifiable from the bank entries dated 23.1.2013, 22.03.2013,\n26.12.2013, 26.12.2013, 08.07.2014 & 12.03.2015. AO also did not mention whether\nthe source of such bank entries are verified or not. Further, no bank statements, bank\naccount type, source

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Gain of 27,87,561/-. Therefore an addition of\n1,85,530/- on this count, is proposed to be added to your total income for the\nyear under consideration u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained\nexpenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of Long\nTerm Capital

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

income as well as calculation on long term capital gain which is available at page 5 of the assessment order. The AO noted that in the revised computation of long term capital gain, the assessee adopted the consideration value from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.19,31,391/- as per provisions of Section 50C and increased the expenses incurred on boundary wall

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Agricultural land)\n Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee sold agricultural land situated beyond municipal\nlimits - Assessing Officer treated sale proceeds as long-term capital gain on the grounds\nthat land was within 5 km of municipal limits at time of sale - Commissioner (Appeals)\nuphheld addition

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and on flimsy grounds. 8 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI 5. The learned AO has erred in charging tax on Long Term Capital 5. The assessee craves his right to add, alter, Gain @ 30% in place of 20% in the amend or delete any grounds of appeal at the time

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the addition of Rs. 57,50,287/ under the head of capital gain

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

additions made by Id. AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) / NFAC. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO, in denying the exemption to the assessee of Rs. 1,47,42,303, under Section 54B of the Income

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.

income is not conclusive. The assessee also did not deposit the money in the capital gain account scheme. The claim of investment in house property u/s. 54F was thus restricted to Rs. 28,00,000/- only as against the claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and accordingly the addition

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

addition, the report of investigation wing as well as statement recorded in search and survey proceedings of various persons who were entry providers. The learned AO also did not bring any further evidence on record. The Learned AO further alleged that the assessee has taken bogus long term capital gain, whereas the assessee has not earned any exempted income

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

addition is chargeable to tax as per provisions of chapters on salary, profits and gains of business and profession Or capital gain Or income

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of exemption u/s 10(38) of I.T. Act do not suffer from infirmities and cannot be held as bogus and accordingly addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Further Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court confirm the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

capital gain chargeable to tax is also\nnot in dispute. The only dispute is that the Id. Assessing Officer\nand that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition merely based on\nthe computation of income

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

capital gain chargeable to tax is also\nnot in dispute. The only dispute is that the Id. Assessing Officer\nand that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition merely based on\nthe computation of income

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

addition of Rs. 31,70,080/- made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 by alleging that the long term capital gain claimed as exempt income

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

capital gain chargeable to tax is also\nnot in dispute. The only dispute is that the Id. Assessing Officer\nand that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition merely based on\nthe computation of income

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain chargeable to tax is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that the ld. Assessing Officer and that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition merely based on the computation of income

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain chargeable to tax is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that the ld. Assessing Officer and that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition merely based on the computation of income