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.

D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee has failed to deposit the unused

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

5,23,66,528/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 13,11,857/- arising out of assessee's parting with 35% of land to the builder, as well as direct sale which is at page no. 95 to 99 of paper book. The ld. CIT(A) has held in the impugned order that the 1st issue is whether

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

17 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI The CIT(A) was well within his right u/s 250(4) and fully empowered to take an independent call in the matter. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranicherra Tea Co. Ltd. [1994] 75 TAXMAN 164 (CAL.) in which

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)

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 50C and increased the expenses incurred on boundary wall from Rs.1,95,100/- (claimed in original computation ) to Rs.3,01,000/- (before indexation

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

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

17. We now refer to the provisions of section 50C, which has been invoked by the AO while bringing to tax the subject transaction, to examine whether the said provisions are applicable in the instant case. Section 50C reads as under: “(1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital

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

17-23) of Paper Book\nand cost of acquisition is as under:-\nCost of purchase Rs 75000/-\nStamp Duty Rs 8450/-\nRegistration Fees Rs 2578/-\nOther Fees Rs 500/-\nTotal Cost of acquisition Rs 86528/-\nAnd the Indexed Cost of Acquisition Comes to Rs.86528* 184/109=1,46,066\nThat the Ld. ITO, Bharatpur has not verified the basic facts

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

D-mat account. The Assessing Officer has not produced any material or\nrecord to controvert the evidence produce by the assessee. Considering all these\nfacts the Hon'ble ITAT held that the order of the Assessing Officer treating the\nlong term capital gain as bogus and consequential addition made to the total\nincome of the assessee is not sustainable & deleted

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

d`f’kZ dk dk;Z gks jgk gS “ks’k fLFkrh rglhynkj ds fjdkMZ ls izkIr gks lkdsxh vr% vkids vkns”k dh ikyuk djrs gq, ek k fjiksVZ] rglhynkj ls izkIr i=] rglhy ls izkIr CD ,oa eksdk uD”kk vkidh lsok esa izLrqr gSA” fujh{kd ds fjiksVZ fu/kkZj.k fjdkMZ ij gSA” 12. The Assessing Officer also

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

17 Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar statutes but applying the law applicable on the date of taxable event, i.e., sale of converted assets. The CBDT Circular No. 397, dated 16-10-1984 clarifies that capital gain in cases of converted assets in closing stock would be chargeable in the year when such converted asset is actually sold as stock

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.”

5. It is pointed out that judgment in CIT v. B.C.Srinivasa Setty, [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC), is distinguishable. It was observed therein that in a newly started business the value of goodwill was not ascertainable, and on sale of goodwill, capital gain was not attracted. It is submitted that in case of acquisition of land, the 17 Shri Udai

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

capital gain earned towards consideration of new residential house within extended period u/s 139(4) of the Act, the claim made by assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act could not be denied. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur in the case of ACIT Vs. Maya Devi Sharma in ITA No. 71/JP/15 dated 25.07.2017 (relevant Para

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

D-40, Uniyara Garden, Jaipur Opp. Uniyara Hospital MD Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUXPM0213G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk

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)

5][In favour of assessee]" b. the Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD incase of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal [2017] 88 taxmann.com 306 (Allahabad) held that "Section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains Cost of acquisition (Valuation report) - Assessment year 2009-10-Assessee's mother-in-law gifted a flat to assessee

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

5. In CIT v. Smt. Vrinda P. Issac, [2012] 24 taxmann.com 131/[2013] 212 Taxman 101 (Mag.) (KARHC), it has been held as under :— 3. The Tribunal in coming to the said conclusion that the investment made by the assessee being within the time specified under sub- section 4 of section 139 of the Act relied on the judgment

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

17 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR jdugement of ITAT and High Court on same issue in assessee’s own case in preceding assessment years. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 to 4 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5.2 I have considered the facts

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17 [Explanation 4.—For the purposes of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (c), "population" means the population according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year;]” As per sub-clause (c) of section 2(IA) any income derived from any building owned and occupied