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

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

25,257/- without any deduction of cost which is wrong. The Assessing officer is therefore directed to consider the sale value under the head capital gain and work out proportionate long term capital gain in respect of land and 10 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal short term capital gain in respect of construction after allowing deduction

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

10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle 7, Jaipur on 24/2/2016 and the returned income was accepted. (Copy of order at Paper book page no 14.) Thereafter, the assessee received one notice under section 148 dated 18/7/2017. (Copy at Paper book page no 15). In reply to this notice

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

25,364 (exempt under Section 10(38)) o Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL): " Sale: Rs. 48,87,600/- " Purchase: Rs. 48,90,900/- " Loss: Rs. 3,300/- Thus, the net capital gain

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). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries, was demanded but the same

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR 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

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid by\nassessee for want of supporting documents—Other than these three additions\nthere

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid by\nassessee for want of supporting documents—Other than these three additions\nthere

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

10 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) made by the valuer on 25/02/2015 instead of year 2011 and the contractor from whom the construction of house was gone done was not produced. It was also held by the Revenue that the source of investment in the house property was not explained or proved by the assessee. However

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

25,398/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is reiterated here in below: 4.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, grounds of appeal, assessment order and submission

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs. 1,51,869/- being the deemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the main issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable.” We are of the view that the present appeal does

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

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

25’ In view of the discussion while deciding the ground no. 1, the arguments raised by the appellant are found to be not acceptable and the addition made by AO with regard to disallowance of bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) is confirmed. The AO held that the assessee has to incur expenditure by way of commission for getting such

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(37) compulsory acquisition of land is makes it clear that

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(37) compulsory acquisition of land is makes it clear that

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(37) compulsory acquisition of land is makes it clear that

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(37) compulsory acquisition of land is makes it clear that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning