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

Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Ownership of more than one house) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where a residential property

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

capital gain and house property.\nAlthough not engaged in regular share trading, the assessee has invested\nin shares of companies

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

property at 300, Gurunanakpura, Jaipur during the year under consideration on 20.01.2010 on which long term capital gains were disclosed in the return of income and deduction u/s 54 was claimed considering purchase of residential house

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

house property carried out by it. However, Ld. AO recomputed the cost of acquisition claimed by assessee and also disallowed the exemption claimed by assessee by alleging as under: (1) Cost of acquisition was not claimed by assessee while computing capital gain

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

house property and Rs. 50,00,000/- in specified bonds i.e. REC & NHAI bonds and taxable long term capital gain

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

capital gains by the Assessing Officer is illegal and unjustified. Shri Ram Narain Yadav, Jaipur. 8. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that plot No.E-29-B, Bani Park, Jaipur was not purchased as a plot of land but as a house property

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

capital gains by the Assessing Officer is illegal and unjustified. Shri Ram Narain Yadav, Jaipur. 8. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that plot No.E-29-B, Bani Park, Jaipur was not purchased as a plot of land but as a house property

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)

capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in 99(sub- section (1) of section 49, by the previous owner, but does not include any expenditure which is deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head Interest on securities, Income from house property, Profits and gains

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

house property and one piece of land. The long term capital gain computed on sale of house property and on sale

YOGESH DAS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house property' at Rs. 3,27,965/- and Income from other sources' at Rs. 10,40,557/- and it has also computed long term capital loss of Rs. 5,30,681/-on account of sale of two immovable properties (sold on 05.12.2012 and 25.03.2013) during the year under consideration. (ii) On the basis of the reasons as reproduced

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

capital gains by purchase of a house property within the stipulated period of section 54(2) i.e., before the extended

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

house property losses against short term capital gain which in contravention with the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961. Such

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

property on dated 23/07/2003 and cost of\nacquisition is as under:-\nCost of purchase Rs 75000/-\nStamp Duty Rs 8450/-\nRegistration Fees Rs 2578/-\nOther Fees Rs 500/-\nTotal Cost of acquisition Rs 86528/-\nAnd the Indexed Cost of Acquisition Comes to Rs.86528* 184/109=1,46,066 That the Ld. ITO,\nBharatpur has not verified the basic facts

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

gain realized from capital asset should have been invested either in purchase of residential house or in constructing the residential house. If it is established that the consideration was received on alienation property

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

House, Mumbai which return back by the postal authorities with the remarks ‘’not claim return to sender’’. Further on googal search, the same address is found to be belonged to Patel Manilal Maganlal & Sons, a angadia service provider i.e. courier agent’’ It is also noted that the AO in the assessment order has mentioned that the request of the assessee

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Capital Gains\nAccount No. 61187164085. We are confident that the DRP/AO is aware that\nthe said account can be opened/utilized for only limited purpose, i.e., towards\nreinvestment in House Property

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

House Property, Capital Gains and Other Sources. The assessee also claimed exempted income under the head capital gain amounting to Rs. 5, 79,283/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The revenue