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

4 of Section 139 of the Act. It was held as under:— From a plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in section 54(2) in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain

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.”

capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the income-tax under s. 139. Sec. 139 cannot be meant only as s. 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of s. 139. Under sub-s. (4

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

gains in purchase or construction of the new residential house is to be considered till the due date under section 139 [which also covers sub-section (4) and (5) of section 139]. However, for the purpose of taking the benefit of Capital

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 Gains Account Scheme before the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the IT Act?” The said question has been answered by the Hon’ble Court in the following words: - “As is clear from Sub Section (4

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

139] in an account in any such bank or institution as may be specified in, and utilised in accordance with, any scheme54 which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame in this behalf and such return shall be accompanied by proof of such deposit; and, for the purposes of sub-section (1), the amount

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain account scheme before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1). A2. It is submitted that section 139 includes section 139(4

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

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

4. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant claimed that the land sold\nwas agricultural land situated at distance of more than 15 Km from limits of\nmunicipality and hence it was not capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act &\ncapital gain arising out of sale of such land was exempt from tax. In support of\nhis contention

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

4) The Commissioner (Appeals) may make further enquiry or direct the\nassessing officer to undertake further inquiry before disposing of the appeal and\nreports the results of the inquiry to the commissioner (Appeals)\n(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) shall state the point of\ndetermination, decision and the reasons for such decision while disposing of the\nappeal

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them: 22 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur (i) Subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4) of the Act on behalf of different directors and relatives of the directors. Notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 26.02.2008, in response to which the assessee filed his return of Income on 23.10.2008 declaring an income of Rs.23,38,731/-, thus showing additional income of Rs.21,65,932/-. The AO completed the assessment under Section

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4:- The appellant has claimed that the deeming of provision of section 50C has a limited scope only to the extent of and for the purpose of section 48. It is further claimed that the process of arriving at Capital Gains and Exemption u/s 54 are two distinct and separate processes. It is further argued that section 54F being

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 139(1) of the IT Act on 22.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 4,50,56,420/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,85,39,399/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

section 139(1) of the IT Act on 18.07.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 4,28,99,930/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,82,78,662/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain

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)

4 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 3.1 The ld. AO noted that details were called-for from the assessee relating to receipts, applications and long term capital loss shown in the computation of total income. The AR of the assessee company filed requisite details. On perusal of details filed, it was revealed that the assessee company has declared sale proceeds

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

4. That there is no logic whatsoever to say that source of investment was not\nverified/proved by the assessee. In-case of payments made through Capital\nGains Account Scheme, every single penny is credited from restricted\ntransfers.\n22. 5. That the DRP failed to peruse the Draft Assessment Order dated 30.03.2024\nwherein Assessing Officer in has infact recorded as hereunder

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished her return of income on 02.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 9,69,30,410/- which includes the income of Rs. 9,12,66,771/- admitted during search and already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gain even though the claim is of the agricultural income, considering it as non-agricultural. Since the assessee has revised the claim and paid the tax due before the assessing officer, there cannot be providing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee we get support of the view that the revised return should be considered as disclosure before