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 asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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 asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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 asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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 asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) Suman Poddar vs. Income Tax Officer, wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry receipts in the form of long-term capital gains. The assessee has failed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee filed appeal before Tribunal after delay of 2208 days - Assessee filed an application to condone delay along with affidavit explaining cause for delay that order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was never served upon assessee - Tribunal dismissed application observing that order of Commissioner (Appeals) was delivered on address mentioned in Form

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Valuation by DVO)\n Assessment year 2008-09 Whether where assessee had claimed that actual\nmarket value of her land was less than stamp duty valuation adopted by Assessing\nOfficer, it was incumbent upon Assessing Officer to refer valuation of said land

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Valuation by DVO)\n Assessment year 2008-09 Whether where assessee had claimed that actual\nmarket value of her land was less than stamp duty valuation adopted by Assessing\nOfficer, it was incumbent upon Assessing Officer to refer valuation of said land

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act. Though the 8 ITA 223 & 222/JP/2020_ Nilesh Agarwal HUF, Jaipur Vs ITO, Jaipur assessee has purported to have received the sale consideration on sale of shares, however, in reality it was his own cash which he received back through some clandestine deals. The AO has referred to the report

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

gains, the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act are general provisions vis-à-vis the specific provisions of Section 112 of the Act. Hence, according to the Hon’ble High Court, even on this count, Section 112 of the Act needs to be considered while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB in relation to capital

SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands partly allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 44 AF of the Income Tax Act. However during the year under consideration, Assessee sold property in the capacity of power of attorney holder of Shrimati Akanksha Gupta on which AO taxed capital gain accordingly as a result of such transfer upon the assessee. Although assessee challenged the said additions before ld. CIT (A) but remained unsuccessful

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Section 112 of the Act needs to be considered while\ncomputing Book Profit u/s 115JB in relation to capital gains

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gains, the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act are general provisions vis-à-vis the specific provisions of Section 112 of the Act. Hence, according to the Hon’ble High Court, even on this count, Section 112 of the Act needs to be considered while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB in relation to capital

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gains, the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act are general provisions vis-à-vis the specific provisions of Section 112 of the Act. Hence, according to the Hon’ble High Court, even on this count, Section 112 of the Act needs to be considered while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB in relation to capital

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Section 112 of the Act needs to be considered while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB in relation to capital gains

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain (LTCG, in short) of Rs.\n1,37,83,051/- declared by assessee on account of sale of shares of M/s Splash Media\n& Infra Ltd(SMIL) now known as M/s Luharuka Media & Infra Ltd in her return of\nincome as bogus and further addition of Rs.8,51,610/- was made u/s 69C by alleging\nthe same as payment

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) Suman Poddar vs. Income Tax Officer, wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: “The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry receipts in the form of long-term capital gains. The assessee has failed

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

section 68 of the Act. 14.6 The bench has also analysed the decision findings of the ld. CIT(A). He has analysed that merely based on the statement u/s. 14 Smt. Rupal Jain, Jaipur. 132(4) without any corroborative evidence no addition can be made. A statement made must be relatable to incriminating material found during the course of search