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

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:

Section 2(14) of the Act. Accordingly we hold that the land in question which was located beyond 8 kms from the Municipal Limits as on 6-01-1994 when the notification was published in the official 8 gazette, the same would fall under the exclusion clause of the term ‘capital asset’ as per provisions of 2

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

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

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

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

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

JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

2) can be pressed into service. In case the assessee has not deposited the amount in the Capital Gain Account Scheme, then the investment is required to be made prior to the due date of filing of return under section 139 of the Act. Hence when the new residential house was neither acquired or constructed within the time period prescribed

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

Bench: Him.

gain u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of sale of shares in his return of income. 2. The Ld. AO disputed the said exemption and besides this made addition in respect of agricultural income without any basis. The impugned proceedings are Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT perse without jurisdiction and authority of law in view of the following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

195, the court clarified that once the identities\nof creditors are established and the loans are received through banking\nchannels, the onus shifts to the revenue to disprove the authenticity of\nthe transactions. The court held that it is not sufficient for the AO to\nmerely question the legitimacy of the lenders without providing evidence\nto substantiate such claims

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was 10 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in instalments and that cost was claimed with indexation

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under\nsection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under\nsection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under\nsection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under\nsection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice\nunder section 143(2) for framing assessment and absence of notice under\nsection

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee’s business operations with greater efficiency and profitability without touching fixed capital of the assessee and there was no addition to or expansion of the profit- making apparatus. Keeping in view, the discussion above the Bench declined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground also