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)

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

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)

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

gains year in which assessable – assessment year 1999- 2000 whether even in cases where pending appeal court /tribunal/ authority, before which appeal is pending permits claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise enhanced compensation (which is in dispute) same is liable to be taxed under section 45(5) in year of receipt- Held, yes - Whether additional amount under section

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) Act of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot\noverride the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147.\nAn Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain to contents and cannot be\nconstrued to override it or render the substance and core nugatory, Section 147 has this effect\nthat

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

2)[ The amount of the capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Capital gains\" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where-\n(i) such land is situate in any area refen-ed to in item (a) or item (b) of\nsub-clat1se (iii) of clause (14) of section 2;\n(ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the\ndate of transfer. was being used for agricultural purposes

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

2) - Held, yes\n21.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n28\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

2) - Held, yes\n21.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n27\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

2) - Held, yes\n21.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n27\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

section 145(3)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief by way of treating FDR interest as part of business turnover relying on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court’s decision in the case of M/s Choudhary & Brothers which is contrary

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain/Loss. As evident\nfrom the assessment order, the scrips of M/s Splash Media/Luharuka Media &\nInfra Limited were found to be penny stock and were used to create bogus\nLTCG.\n\n6. 2. The appellant-assessee failed to prove and establish with the help of the\nFinancials as to how the scrips of M/s Splash Media/Luharuka Media & Infra\ngot multi

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)

Capital Gain. However, the said shares shall be recognized differently in the Books of Accounts i.e., as prescribed under Accounting Standard 13 (‘AS-13’). AS-13 deals with the Accounting for Investments. As per the provisions of AS-13, the cost of investments to be disposed have to be computed at the average carrying amount of the total holding