SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2, Jaipur, which was collected during the course of search and seizure action carried out in case of Shri Ajay Gangwal. On the basis of such information ld.AO formed belief that during the course of search and seizure action in case of Shri Ajay Gangwal, an ledger in the name of assessee was found and seized, wherein transaction of Future

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

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, the appellant filed the screenshot of the Map from which it can\nbe identified that the impugned property is situated. at a distance of more than\n15Kms from the Bari Municipal Area

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur accorded on 23.07.2022. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) and Show Cause Notice were issued on various dates. In compliance to the above notices, the assessee furnished ledger, bank statement, demat account

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

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 30.03.2017, assessee furnished return on 30.10.2017 disclosing the same loss of Rs. 3,15,326/- as disclosed in the return filed originally on 14.10.2010. The A.O. completed the assessment u/s 148/143(3) of the Act determining total income at Rs. 2,76,51,300/- 3 ITA 168/JP/2020_

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 45(3) of the Act as capital contribution to the firm, then the same capital assets cannot be transferred subsequently by way of any other mode and therefore, the transfer of land as capital contribution is not genuine more particularly ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur when the firm existed only on papers

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains (LTCG) of Rs.15,95,000/-\n, which has not been found genuine and verifiable from the return of income on\nprima facie verification. In response to the notice under section 148 of the IT Act,\nthe appellant e-filed return of income on 17.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs.\n2,76,990/- for the AY 2013-14. Thereafter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quashed the proceedings initiated under section 148/148A. Cross objection Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals erred in not quashing the assessment order which has been

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

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

148 Taxman 1) • ITAT Mumbai in case of Satish P. Malhotra vs. ITO 16(1)(2) (ITA No.6877/Mum/2014) • ITAT Mumbai in case of Ms. Satyavati Arvind Kotian vs. ITO — 26(2)(2) (ITA No.5036/Mum/2017) 7. It was further submitted that the intention or bona fide is neither under doubt nor it is doubted. Moreover, it is a settled law that

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

148 was not served on the appellant. 2 ITA 264/JP/2017_ Ramakant Sharma Vs ITO 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law also ld. A.O. grossly erred in finalizing the reassessment proceedings without issuing and serving notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts & circumstances of the case

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

2), viz. 139 and 139(1) in two different sentences. In the first sentence with reference to appropriation of un-utilised amount of 8 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) capital gain, section 139 is referred without mentioning any sub section. While in the second sentence with reference to deposition of amount in capital gain account, section

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148. Thereafter, the AO has again issued notice under section\n148 dt. 28.03.2017. In response thereto the assessee has filed the ITR on\n01.05.2017 and the assessee has also filed letter dated 04.05.2017 objecting the\nproceedings. This notice was issued with the approval of the Addl. CIT. Notice\nunder section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with query

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)

gains, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1-4- 1981 Assessing Officer held that there was no cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee

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 gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised the ld. DR has filed the following submissions: A paper book containing following record filed vide letter dated 06.10.2022 S.No. Particulars Page No. A.Y 2016-17 1. Copy of letter of Director of M/s Chokhi Dhani Developer

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 gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised the ld. DR has filed the following submissions: A paper book containing following record filed vide letter dated 06.10.2022 S.No. Particulars Page No. A.Y 2016-17 1. Copy of letter of Director of M/s Chokhi Dhani Developer

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 gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised the ld. DR has filed the following submissions: A paper book containing following record filed vide letter dated 06.10.2022 S.No. Particulars Page No. A.Y 2016-17 1. Copy of letter of Director of M/s Chokhi Dhani Developer