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(14)(iii

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

gain and other sources. A search was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 07-01-2016 in case of Dilip Manihar group in which assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 30-03-2016 declaring total income

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

gain and other sources. A search was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 07-01-2016 in case of Dilip Manihar group in which assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 30-03-2016 declaring total income

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

gain and other sources. A search was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 07-01-2016 in case of Dilip Manihar group in which assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 30-03-2016 declaring total income

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

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)(iii

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)

14,10,855 Nil 82,62,098 23,464 49,93,000 34,45,634 2015-16 27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

2(14) (iii) [as it stood after 1-4-\n1970], of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Chargeability Whether\nparliament has legislative competence to levy capital gains tax on profits arising\nfrom sale of agricultural land even though situate within areas specified in section

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 and therefore is not a capital asset. The\nland being agricultural land which is not a capital asset and hence no capital gain

RADU RAM JAT HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section 2(14)(iii)(a) and this is not a capital asset and therefore the profit from transfer of such land is exempted from capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gains tax in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Thus, the gain from

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

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

14 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the property of the firm includes all property and rights and interest in property originally brought into the stock of firm, or acquired, by purchase or otherwise, by or for the firm or for the purpose and in course of business of firm, and includes also the goodwill of the business. Therefore any individual

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, 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)

14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department

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)

14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department

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)

14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department

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)

14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department