SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

10,610/- u/s 69 of\nthe Act towards\nconsideration paid by the\nassessee on account of\npurchase of residential\nflat.\nThe assessee craves his\nrights to add, amend or\nalter any of the grounds\non or before the hearing\n6.\nBrief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his return of\nincome

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 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal short term capital gain in respect of construction after allowing deduction for cost as held above. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt floorwise valuation according to stamp/revenue authorities to work out cost for computing long term capital gain and short term capital gain.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order

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

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

gain of ₹27,87,561/-was added to the assessee's\nincome from other sources and taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE.\nii.\niii. Additionally, it was determined that an 6% commission (₹1,85,530/-\ncalculated at a reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C.\niv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section

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 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI has within a period of three years after that date 62[constructed, one residential house in India] (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset), the capital gain shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— (a) if the cost

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

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

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

10- 11] [ In favour of assessee] The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kota Dal Mill Vs DCIT, CC- Kota in appeal no. ITYA 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 (Order dated 31-12- 2018) the aspect of search and survey on the entry operators based in Kolkata and the addition based on the statement of entry

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

10- 11] [ In favour of assessee] The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kota Dal Mill Vs DCIT, CC- Kota in appeal no. ITYA 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 (Order dated 31-12- 2018) the aspect of search and survey on the entry operators based in Kolkata and the addition based on the statement of entry

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

10- 11] [ In favour of assessee] The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kota Dal Mill Vs DCIT, CC- Kota in appeal no. ITYA 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 (Order dated 31-12- 2018) the aspect of search and survey on the entry operators based in Kolkata and the addition based on the statement of entry

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

10- 11] [ In favour of assessee] The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kota Dal Mill Vs DCIT, CC- Kota in appeal no. ITYA 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 (Order dated 31-12- 2018) the aspect of search and survey on the entry operators based in Kolkata and the addition based on the statement of entry

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

10- 11] [ In favour of assessee] The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in the case of M/s Kota Dal Mill Vs DCIT, CC- Kota in appeal no. ITYA 997 to 1002/JP/2018 & 1119/JP/2018 (Order dated 31-12- 2018) the aspect of search and survey on the entry operators based in Kolkata and the addition based on the statement of entry

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)

13. The learned ITAT, being the last fact-finding authority, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record. We thus find no perversity in the Impugned Order…” [Emphasis Supplied] ARNAV GOYAL VS ITO, WARD

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

capital gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

capital gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo