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.

iii) Nagar Nigam, Kota did not give permission for 0+9 floors and stopped the construction activities in FY 2017-18. iv) The site plan of the project was finally approved by the Nagar Nigam, Kota vide their order No NNK/18/23948-51 dated 18/03/2018. v) The Project was also approved by Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Rajasthan vide its registration

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. 11, 12, 13 and 14 and appreciating the legal position has held the gain to be chargeable to tax under the head Capital Gains. The ld. AR has further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the following facts: (i) The land was not purchased by the assessee but was inherited by the assessee from his father on 11/04/1994

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

iii) 65constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property".] …….. 10

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

iii) and consequently any gain on sale of this land is not liable for tax. 2. The jamabandi is at PB 21-27. The land was used for agricultural purposes as is evident from the Khasra Girdawari at PB 28. For better realisation of his ancestral land, he sold the same after dividing it into 34 plots. A total

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

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.”

25,15,980/-. 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” The assessee has also raised the additional ground:- “Under the facts and circumstances of the case no capital gains are taxable on sale of land when the same was awarded free of cost

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

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

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

10 per shares. On 21.02 2013, Smart Champ was amalgamated into Cressenda Solution and 15,000/- shares of Cressenda Solution were allotted to assessce Between 18.7.2013 to 12.09.2013, the shares numbering 15,000/- were sold for Rs. 73,77,806/- @Rs. 501.75 to 503.50). After examination of the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account of Cressenda Solution and other relevant

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

iii) ACIT Vs. Maya Devi Sharma in ITA No. 71/JP/15 dated 25.07.2017 (relevant Para 5.4 at page 24 of the order) (iv) Shri Arvind Jain Vs. ITO in ITA No. 825/JP/2016 dated 20.06.2018 In view of above, it is humbly prayed that since assessee has made investment in construction of house property within the specified period, assessee may please

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10(38)/68: Long Term capital gains on sale of “penny” stocks cannot be treated as bogus & unexplained cash credit if the documentation is in order & there is no allegation of manipulation by SEBI or the BSE. Denial of right of cross- examination is fatal flaw which renders the assessment order a nullity. Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Penny

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)

25-10- only upon fulfillment of certain 2016 in which the taxability of conditions. Thus, the submission compensation given on compulsory of the AR of the assessee acquisition of land was dealt with. companies is not in consonance with the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the section clearly talks about the land used

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)

25-10- only upon fulfillment of certain 2016 in which the taxability of conditions. Thus, the submission compensation given on compulsory of the AR of the assessee acquisition of land was dealt with. companies is not in consonance with the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the section clearly talks about the land used

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)

25-10- only upon fulfillment of certain 2016 in which the taxability of conditions. Thus, the submission compensation given on compulsory of the AR of the assessee acquisition of land was dealt with. companies is not in consonance with the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the section clearly talks about the land used

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)

25-10- only upon fulfillment of certain 2016 in which the taxability of conditions. Thus, the submission compensation given on compulsory of the AR of the assessee acquisition of land was dealt with. companies is not in consonance with the provisions of section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the section clearly talks about the land used

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. M/S KRISH HOME PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was right in holding that the said land was not an agricultural land at the time of its sale and that the income arising from its sale was not exempt from the capital gains tax. The appeals, accordingly, fail