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 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

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

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, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). The Id. AO has discussed the issue of LTCG particularly in para 2 (PB 120). The AO, who finally passed the order dt.31.07.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act (PB 119-121) by making additions / disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

3)\n(4)\n(5)\n1.\nPlot No. 65B-\n1\n1159256\n773596\n385660\n2.\nPlot No. 65B-\n2\n1147632\n773596\n374036\nTotal\n2306888\n1547192\n759696\n(iii) Hence, in view of the above, there is short term capital gain of Rs.\n759696/- instead of long term capital loss of Rs. 179799/- as claimed by the\nassessee which is absolutely

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

gains from transfer of such\nasset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing\nas a result of such transfer.\n(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall,\nso far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or\nassessed or assessable under

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

3)\n(4)\n(5)\n1.\nPlot No. 65B- 1159256\n773596\n385660\n1\n2.\nPlot No. 65B-1147632\n773596\n374036\n2\nTotal\n2306888\n1547192\n759696\n(iii) Hence, in view of the above, there is short term capital gain of Rs.\n759696/- instead of long term capital loss of Rs. 179799/- as claimed by the\nassessee which is absolutely

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

gains only. The\ncompany has no business activity and despite the said company has\nshown a large amount in security premium account and using these funds\nfor giving loans. The company is using their funds for investment in unlisted\nequity shares and providing loans only.\n5.4 From perusal of the financials disclosed by the above companies, it is\nfurther observed

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT\n(Inv) wing-2 Jaipur. In the matter detailed statements of husband of the\nassessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya were recorded

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain on sale of the land. Now the assessee has filed appeal before us. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are inter-connected and inter-related and challenging the validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section 147 read with section 148 being not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act. 3. Before

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax\nAct (here in after \"Act\"), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer.\n2\nITA No. 254 to 257/JPR/2024\nSh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT\nSince the issue involved in these four appeals of the\nassessee's are almost identical therefore, were heard together with\nthe agreement the parties and are being disposed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

153.\nassess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped\nassessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under\nthis section, or recomputed the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital Gain on sale of land and building ignoring the vital fact that no addition had been made on the reason framed for reopening of the case of the appellant. The case of the appellant was reopened on the reasoning of cash deposits in the bank account during the relevant previous year and non filing of TR by the appellant

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2. Since the issue involved in these four appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical therefore, were heard together with the agreement the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2. Since the issue involved in these four appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical therefore, were heard together with the agreement the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

153. [Para 27]\n\nThe language of Explanation 2 to new section 148 is akin to section 153A and\nsection 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of sections\n153A to 153D, the cases being dealt there under were circumscribed in the scope\nof newly substituted section 148. [Para 28]\n\nThe Department

SHREYA SINGHVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

3) Where the new asset is transferred within a period of three years from the date of its purchase or, as the case may be, its construction, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause