SMT. NIRMALA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SHRI YOGESH MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SMT. KAVITA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

10,000, Tribunal was justified in holding land in question\nsold by assessee which was situated in said village was an agricultural\nland\nKulwant Singh vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 383\n(Chandigarh - Trib.)[26-04-2024]\nSection 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset\n(Agricultural land) Assessment year 2015-16 Assessee

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 gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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.

10,00,000/- 07/07/2020 6. 187861 CBI 2138560/- 266251/- 24,04,811/- 06/07/2021 7. 108224/- 1,08,224/- 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

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)

10,00,000 Less: indexed cost of purchase Rs. 2,06,624 Indexed cost boundary wall Rs.3,47,290 Indexed cost of MittiBharai Rs. 1,78,802 Rs. 7,32,716 Capital Gain Rs.2,67,284 4.3.1 When the notice u/s 142(1) was given for invoking the provisions of sec.50C of the IT Act, the appellant had filed

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

section 10(38) of the Act.\nWe are afraid if such a way, we take a view that the gain arrived by a valid\nprocess be considered as bogus gain and unexplained then the mess will\nbe created no corporate entity will get the capital and the purpose of capital\nmarket will vanish. The contention of the revenue that

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

10,610/- u/s 69 of\nthe Act towards\nconsideration paid by the\nassessee on account of\npurchase of residential\nflat.\nThe assessee craves his\nrights to add, amend or\nalter any of the grounds\non or before the hearing\n6.\nBrief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of\nincome

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

10 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal short term capital gain in respect of construction after allowing deduction for cost as held above. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt floorwise valuation according to stamp/revenue authorities to work out cost for computing long term capital gain and short term capital gain.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order

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

2), viz. 139 and 139(1) in two different sentences. In the first sentence with reference to appropriation of un-utilised amount of 8 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) capital gain, section 139 is referred without mentioning any sub section. While in the second sentence with reference to deposition of amount in capital gain account, section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(x)\npertaining to increase in tolerance band for variation between stamp duty\nvaluation and actual consideration from 5 per cent to 10 per cent by Finance Act,\n2020 is clarificatory/curative in nature having retrospective effect - Held, yes\nWhether, therefore, since difference in instant case was less than 10 per cent, no\naddition could be made in respect

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)

gains was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. These shares were purchased by the assessee after making payment through payees account cheque which stood debited in the bank account of the assessee (APB 35-36). These shares stood sold via transaction executed through Bombay stock exchange after payment of STT (Securities ARNAV GOYAL VS ITO, WARD 2

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

capital gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo