DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

capital -F. Rationalization of International Taxation Provisions in the memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2012 "Section 195........................................assessment years." Thus, the Explanation 2 does not at all positively say that despite the fact that income of the non-resident payee is not chargeable to tax in India yet however, Sec. 195 shall applies on the payer resident

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 54 of the Act." The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Office vs. Rajkumar Parashar (2018) 195 TTJ (Jp) 212(DPB 10-17) it was held as: “Where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 654/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asha Bhargava Cuke D.C.I.T. Vs. L/R Of Devendra Kumar Bhargava, Circle-2 E-81, Devashish, Radha Marg, Jaipur. Ambabari, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abspb 6891 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 05/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

capital gain tax.” 12. On the contrary, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and also relied on the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries (1992) 195 ITR 625 (Cal) and Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs CIT (1993) 70 Taxman 301 (SC). 13. We have heard the rival contentions

JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

capital gains. Therefore, the extended period of three years was made available to the assesses to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act by treating the allotment of flats by the DDA under self finance scheme at par with the construction of flat. (iv) The appellant claimed deduction u/s 54 of the Act for acquiring a flat at Mumbai

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 for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

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 for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 147 of the Act and following case laws: Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay) CIT vs Shri Ram Singh [ 2008 ] 306 ITR 343. (Raj) M/s. S V Jadhav VS. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, SanglI WRIT PETITION NO.3345 OF 2024, Bombay High Court A. Rejoinder on written synopsis

SMT. SUDHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders to cost

capital gain of Rs.9,33,836/- on sale of shares of M/s. Parikh Herbals Ltd. claimed exempt u/s 10(38) is bogus by making various incorrect and irrelevant observations,’’ 2.1 As per the brief facts of the present case, the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 B of the Income Tax Act was completed their by making additions under section

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

195 in the name of assessee. Assessee himself offered the Long Term Capital Loss in his own name and claimed the TDS. 1.10 Ld. CIT observed that the booking rights were in joint name with wife of assessee, the capital loss should have been assessed 1/2 in both the assessee and his wife. 1.11 Your honour as per guidelines issued

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, 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. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

capital gains were not treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s 54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in order—Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing of ‘return of income’ by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any embargo

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains tax GROUND No. (2) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts sustaining legality of order of the Id. AO in which addition of Rs.4,07,000/- was made by ignoring the different judicial pronouncements when: 10 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR (a) Reasons recorded and notice