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)

20. Coming back to the provisions of Section 54G, the capital gains have to be utilized for the claim of deduction within a specified period. Since the capital gains has to be utilized, the logical conclusion would be the capital gains 14 Guruvendra Singh vs. ACIT, Circle-01, Kota arising on the date of sale, therefore, in our understanding

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 cannot be\ntreated as bogus then the addition made by AO is not sustainable and hence\ndeleted.\nC. Reliance is also placed on the following cases:-\nCIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.)\nIn this case, assessee had shown LTCG from the sale of shares and same was\nclaimed as exempt u/s 10

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.

capital gain account scheme. The AO restricted the claim of investment in house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income

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

20,82,610/- which was revised by filing revised return of income on 01/08/2013 declaring total income in revised return at Rs. 5,57,60,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assesse. The A.O. after discussing all the facts and circumstances as well as the documents placed before him passed assessment order

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 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 of computation form annexed to the hearing or earlier. assessment order and its consequent impact on surcharge and interest under section 234B & 234C. 6. The assessee craves his right to add, alter

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)

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

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

10+ km distance\nThat as per Notification No. [SO 9447] (File No. 164/3/87-ITA.I)], dated. 6-1-1994 regarding\n“Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by item (B) of clause (ii) of the proviso to\nsub-clause (c) of clause (1A) and item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2 of the\nIncome

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

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

10. Now we refer to the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act which have been specifically brought on the statue book to bring to tax these type of transactions where a partner brings in his capital asset and contribute the same as his share in the capital of the partnership firm. The sub-section (3) to section

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 2(14) clause (iii) states that an agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit is not to be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, as the agricultural land under consideration is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit, it is not a capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) and consequently any gain

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

20 plots to have better realisation of his capital asset. Out of these plots, 3 plots were sold in AY 2010-11, 1 plot in AY 2011-12 and 5 plots were sold in the year under consideration. 2.4 In AY 2010-11, the AO considered the above transactions as adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly assessed

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section 10

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)

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more particularly when no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the department to hold that assessee had introduced his undisclosed income in the garb

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

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

20 to 26 were not provided. therefore this incomplete statement cannot be read against the assessee in quasi-judicial proceedings not suppose to reply by the assessee. (ii). That the statement of Shri AnujAgarwal was recorded in what capacity during survey operation of office premises of korp securities Ltd and other companies situated at martio business house, Kolkata

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

10. It may also be noted that if the goodwill generated in a new business is regarded as acquired at a cost and subsequently passes to an assessee in any of the modes specified in sub-s. (1) of s. 49, it will become necessary to determine the cost of acquisition to the previous owner. Having regard to the nature