MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

gain in such circumstances, i.e., the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. There is no ambiguity found in the said provision. Under section 2(47

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

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

2(47) read with section 45(3), it is clear that when a capital asset owned by a partner is contributed to the firm, there is transfer in the previous year in which such capital asset is contributed in the firm and for the purpose of computation of capital gain

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

gain in such circumstances, i.e., the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. There is no ambiguity found in the said provision. Under section 2(47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any\nrights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of\nthe capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not\ninvolve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any\nrights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of\nthe capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not\ninvolve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

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

2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43[***], being buildings or 44lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house44, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred

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)

47,290 Indexed cost of MittiBharai Rs. 1,78,802 Rs. 7,32,716 Capital Gain Rs.2,67,284 4.3.1 When the notice u/s 142(1) was given for invoking the provisions of sec.50C of the IT Act, the appellant had filed the revised computation of long term capital gain, which is as under: Sales consideration value

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

2(47), i.e. definition of "transfer", which would enable the assessee to get the benefit under section 54 of the Act” As per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be given while considering a claim for exemption from tax. Basis the same, section

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)

2(47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

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)

2(47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

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)

2(47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

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)

2(47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain arising from sale of property, it is\ndate of allotment of property which is relevant for purpose of\ncomputing holding period and not date of registration of\nconveyance deed\nf) Mohd. Ilyas Ansari v. ITO-23(2)(3),Mumbai [ITA No.\n6174/M/2017dtd.06/11/2020, 186 ITD 407 (Mumbai - Trib.)]\nWhere Assessing Officer mechanically applied provisions of\nsection 56(2

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

47,419/-under the provision of section\n80P(2)(i) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is not imperative repeat the facts but it is\nnotable that the AO did not accept the claim of the assessee and disallowed the\nclaim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) in respect of the interest received from co-operative Banks\nfor an amount

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,789/-. This has been accepted by the AO. Since assessee has purchased the residential land for Rs.23,41,728/- and Rs.45,00,000/- is deposited in capital gain account scheme, totaling to Rs.68,41,728/-, 5 Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pareek, Jaipur. assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 to work out capital gain separately on sale of house