SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 2(14)(iii)(a) or 2(14)(iii)(b) as these stood then and thus the provisions of capital gains

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Section 2(14) clause (iii) states that an agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit is not to be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, as the agricultural land under consideration is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit, it is not a capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) and consequently any gain

SMT. KAVITA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SHRI YOGESH MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SMT. NIRMALA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14 Guruvendra Singh vs. ACIT, Circle-01, Kota arising on the date of sale, therefore, in our understanding of the law, although the transfer took place on 10.04.2006 but the capital gain arose on the date of sale of the capital asset….” “….2 3 . Further, it can be seen that since Section

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 and not accepting the gain from sale of such land as exempt from tax. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) was wrong, illegal and arbitrary in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,15,77,722/- under long term capital

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

section 45(2). Therefore, FMV of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement will be assessed under the head capital gain and excess over such FMV can only be brought to tax as business income. 3. The ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon

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

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

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm in which ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur he becomes a partner, by way of capital contribution, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place. In other words, the year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. M/S KRISH HOME PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

capital gains arising from sale of land used for agricultural purposes would be revenue derived from such land and, therefore, 'agricultural income' within the definition under section 2(1A) with the result that Parliament would have no legislative competence to tax such agricultural income; and (ii) amended 15 ITO vs. M/s Krish Home Pvt. Ltd. section 2( 14

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

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.

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.12.2018. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Indira Giri vs. ITO grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law in upholding the action of Ld. AO in denying relief

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) 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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2

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

capital gain Rs. 2,38,996/-. He claimed deduction of Rs. 14,00,000/- under section 54EC on account of investment

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)

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case