SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16\n7,715,620\nJuhi Bhandari\nTotal\n22,961,900.00\nBank Account No.\nSBBJ A/c No. 510521S5499\nSBBJ A/c No. 510521S5499\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\nSBBJ Capital Gain Vo No. 61192561563\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No.61192561563\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61192501563\nSBBJ Capital Gain

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.

16 of the judgement]” 1.12 Facts of the appellant and case laws, clearly show that a substantive compliance of the law was made by the appellant. Section 54F(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 1987 wef AY 1988-89. Memorandumexplaining the provision of the act read as under: 19 Indira Giri vs. ITO RATIONALISATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CAPITAL GAINS

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

section 50C are applicable. The Assessing Officer has brought to tax, the area sold to other person (367.74 Sq. ft.) and area transferred to builder (4129.37 Sq. ft.) as income from business. Since, the assessee has acquired those constructed areas in exchange for land, it is held that land underneath this constructed area is to be treated as long term

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)

16 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR income as well as calculation on long term capital gain which is available at page 5 of the assessment order. The AO noted that in the revised computation of long term capital gain, the assessee adopted the consideration value from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.19,31,391/- as per provisions of Section

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

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

16. In light of above, we are of the view that the taxable event has happened in the year of transfer of capital asset by way of capital contribution which happens to be financial 2005-06 relevant to assessment year 2006-07 and the provisions of section 45(3) are clearly attracted. The subject transaction shall therefore be exigible

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

16,600. Therefore, the taxability arising on conversion of resort land into stock-in-trade to the extent the latter has been sold during the year, arises during the impunged assessment year. The matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO to determine the capital gains in accordance with the provisions of section

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

16 Shri Udai Singh Rathore vs. ITO, Jaipur the computation provisions pertaining to the capital gain. Thus, as per the provisions of section

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

16 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) 139(4) is not an independent provision, but is related to time contemplated under the provision of section 139(4) of the Act. Accordingly, section 139(4) had to be read alongwith sub section (1) of section 139 and the due date for furnishing the return of income

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

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

16 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR AO made two additions namely Rs.23,23,696/- u/s 68 and Rs. 1,45,421/- u/s 69C of the Act respectively. 2.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the relevant observation

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

section 54F for availing the deduction as: a. The sale proceeds was kept separately by opening an FDR; b. Later on, when it came to the notice of the Appellant that the FDR is required to be made under Capital Gain Account Scheme, the Appellant in order to rectify the procedural mistake en-cashed the FDR deposited with ICICI bank

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain separately on sale of house and sale of agricultural land. The ld. A/R submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) by referring to definition of agricultural income u/s 2(1A) has observed that income derived from the building in the immediate vicinity of the agricultural land required as dwelling house or store house or other out building is regarded

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

16 Taxmann.com 42 (Bombay) at Para 20 to 24 of the order has held as under : "20. To accept the contention of the revenue that the words used in clause (iii) of the Explanation to Section 48 of the Act has to be read by ignoring the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Act runs counter to the entire

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)

16,034/-. On going through the nature of transactions, the AO doubted the genuineness of the short- term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry (in the case of the assessee no enquiries were made) that during the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. at varying rates from

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more particularly when no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the department to hold that assessee had introduced his undisclosed income in the garb

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