SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

13,808/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 20813808/- Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 16656282 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 11.02.2013. Khasra No. 1179 2) Rs. 1,59,56,282/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 16656282/- Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 19411456 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 12.02.2013. Khasra

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] (1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

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.

D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee has failed to deposit the unused

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period

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)

D) (B) G) (A) 2014-15 14,10,855 Nil 82,62,098 23,464 49,93,000 34,45,634 2015-16 27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital expenditure as application out of receipts for the year. Not pressed. Additional Ground :- The learned AO has wrongly disallowed the claim of benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for violation of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b)/(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not taken this ground in original

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

13-16) Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Ownership of more than one house) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where a residential property is jointly owned by two persons 20 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI that would not preclude an assessee from claiming exemption

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

1) is subject to the extended period provided u/s 139(4). Hence, extended period u/s 139(4) has to be considered for the purpose of utilisation of the capital gain amount. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galiya v. ITO in ITA No.7326/ Mum/2010, has held that when the assessee

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

capital gain and other sources. Therefore, this clearly suggests that the ld. AO was completely satisfied with manner and substantiation of the undisclosed income declared by it. Therefore, the ld. AO was incorrect in giving finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income. 8.4 It was further submitted that as already explained that the assessee made a surrender

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021 : Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] held that [PB : 3]: 10 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 7. Failure to adhere to the mandatory

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

13. In view of the above, we find that due date for furnishing the return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act is subject to the extended period provided under Sub-Section (4) of Section 139 of the Act. Consequently, the question of law is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Thus

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)

13 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR To support the case, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following paper book. S.N. Details of documents Page No. 1. Copy of notice u/s 147 of the Act vide DIN & Notice 1 No. ITBA/AST/148/2020-21/1032056321(1) dated 31-03-2021 2. Computation Sheet Capital Gain working

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere

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

1,98,776/-,allowed by Assessing Officer. The 2nd issue is whether provisions of section 50C are applicable. Since in earlier para, I have held that the income from sale of property is to be taxed under the head long term capital gain, therefore provisions of section 50C are applicable. Accordingly, the value substituted by Assessing Officer with

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

d). The actual provision M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited made during the FY 2016-17 was Rs 22.37 crore which includes Rs 5.48 crore for provisions against standard assets. Since the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) are applicable for bad and doubtful debts only, provisions made against standard assets are to be excluded while computing

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

13] [In favour of assessee]\"\nf. That the Hon'ble ITAT JAIPUR BENCH 'SMC' incase of DiptiGargv. Income-tax\nOfficer* [2024] 162 taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that “Section 2(14), read with\nsection 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital assets (Agricultural\nland) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee sold an agricultural land for a certain amount

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

D-GOA. 3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly again in the ROI filed u/s 153A on 08.04.2017, same income of Rs. 3.94Cr. was declared. 3.4 There was no variation was made so far as the additional income of Rs. 3.95Cr. declared by the assessee is concerned. Kindly

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains, assessee relied on provision of section 55(2)(b)(ii) - She disclosed value of flat in question as on 1-4- 1981 on basis of valuation report submitted by approved valuer - Assessing Officer disbelieved aforesaid valuation report submitted by assessee in support of her claim as to cost of acquisition of flat on reasoning that assessee

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital gain.” 2. The ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is against the finding of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he has not accepted the contention of the assessee that the plots on the agriculture land belongs to the HUF and not to the assessee in his individual capacity. As per ld. CIT(A), the assessee has failed