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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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 are attracted. Accordingly, the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24-01-2022. The assessee in response to notice (supra) revised his computation of 16 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR income as well as calculation on long term capital gain

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

Gain aroused in the case\nof the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO issued a number of\nnotices to the assessee which are stated as under:-\nSr. No. Notice u/s Date of Notice Remarks\n1. 148 27.03.2019 No compliance\n2. 142(1) 27.08.2019 No compliance\n3. 142(1) 04.10.2019 No compliance\n4. 142(1) 11.10.2019 No compliance\n5. Show

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gains”(copy of assessment order dated Oct 2016 is enclosed) Complete documents relating to the property sold and investment made u/s 54F were duly filed, which were duly examined and after due verification the returned income was duly accepted. Further again, after a lapse of four years, notice u/s 148 has been reissued to re- examine the LTCG offered

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the addition of Rs. 57,50,287/ under the head of capital gain

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

capital gains which are tax exempted. In the instant case the shares were acquired by the assessee of a paper company and then that merged into a listed entity and the most interesting part is that the assessee got 38 shares of a listed company against each share of a non- listed company and then all the beneficiaries had exited

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 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

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 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

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain. 16 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.13 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

capital gain of exemption u/s 10(38) of I.T.\nAct do not suffer from infirmities and cannot be held as bogus and accordingly\naddition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted.\n3.1 As regards Ground No. 4 of the assessee, the Bench after hearing both the parties\nfinds that this ground relates

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

capital gain.\n1.16 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in\nthe assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion\nhowever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika\nRam vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain without giving proper benefit of indexation and deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in adopting fair market value of property from F.Y. 2004-05 without considering the explanation (iii) to provision of section 48 of the Act. 5. That

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

capital gain. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2014-15\ndeclaring an income of Rs. 21,35,200/- on 18-3-2015 which was processed under\nsection 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for\nlimited scrutiny under section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 and notice under section

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

capital gain to avoid confusion, but details of cost of acquisition were not furnished. The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for verification of the cost of acquisition.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(2)", "142