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

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

capital gain liability can be fastened on the partners in AY 2008-09. If the date of execution of sale deed is considered as date of transfer, section 2(47)(v

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

v. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and the Supreme Court held that the view taken in the aforesaid case of Gujarat High Court P in Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai is not the correct view and the Apex Court upheld the view taken by other High Courts referred to above. The Apex Court in para 20 of the aforesaid judgment said

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)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

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)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

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)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

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

capital, which are covered in the category of\n\"extinguishment\" within the meaning of 'transfer under section 2(47) of the Act.\nThus, even when there is a single entity there can be an extinguishment of right\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(47) and hence the observation of the Assessing\nOfficer is not in accordance with law.\nAs regards

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

capital, which are covered in the category of\n\"extinguishment\" within the meaning of 'transfer under section 2(47) of the Act.\nThus, even when there is a single entity there can be an extinguishment of right\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(47) and hence the observation of the Assessing\nOfficer is not in accordance with law.\nAs regards

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

47[constructed, one residential house in India], 46then], instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say,— 12 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI

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)

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 in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee

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)

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 in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee

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)

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 in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee

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)

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 in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee

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

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

Capital Gains Scheme FDR with Canara Bank on the same date; c. Ultimately the Appellant utilized the funds kept under the CGA.S account for purchase of property. The similar judgment was pronounced by the different Benches of ITAT in the following cases: 7 Renu Jain vs. ITO • ITAT Jodhpur in case of Jagan Nath Singh Lodha v. ITO (148 Taxman

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47 CCH (2016) Mumbai Trib\nLong-term capital gains arising from transfer of penny stocks cannot be treated\nas bogus merely because SEBI has initiating an inquiry with regard to the\nCompany and the broker, if the shares are purchased from the exchange,\npayment is by cheque and delivery of shares is taken and given.\nA. We may further point

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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business. (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section