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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital gains tax. It has also been contended that the deduction towards the cost of land has not been allowed while determining the income under the head profit and gains from business. 11. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that basis receipt of the AIR information, the Assessing Officer observed that there is a cash deposit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the IT Act at Rs. 68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

200/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Details and information sought by AO were furnished and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs.31,70,080/- by treating the long term capital gain [claimed exempt

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

200/-. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 21st March, 2013 to assess the income on account of sale of properties by the assessee. The AO recorded the Shri Ram Narain Yadav, Jaipur. reasons and proposed to assess the long term capital gain

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

200/-. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 21st March, 2013 to assess the income on account of sale of properties by the assessee. The AO recorded the Shri Ram Narain Yadav, Jaipur. reasons and proposed to assess the long term capital gain

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed\nincome of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High\ncourts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases\n(CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP filed by the Revenue against

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

capital gain is contemplated under section 54F (4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with section

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

200/- and Rs. 20,86,800/- totaling Rs. 20,90,000/- and Rs. 5,072/- was deducted as brokerage by IIFL India Infoline Limited. So the total profit in this transaction was Rs. 10,82,000/- which is included in net profit of Rs. 14,14,040/- as per P&L account on page no. 18 of paper book. Therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit.”\n4.1 Being aggrieved with the above finding of the ld. CIT (A), the revenue came in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds captioned herein above.\n5. Before us, the ld. DR vide letter dated 09.07.2025 submitted the written submission which are reiterated herein below :-\n\"BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). The Id. AO has discussed the issue of LTCG particularly in para 2 (PB 120). The AO, who finally passed the order dt.31.07.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act (PB 119-121) by making additions / disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made

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

capital gain. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2014-15\ndeclaring an income of Rs. 21,35,200/- on 18-3-2015 which was processed under\nsection 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for\nlimited scrutiny under section

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Section 148, vide order dated 22.12.2016, at a total income of Rs. 7,46,34,945, resulting from additions of Rs.7,45,22,506 [AO Order Page 8]. II. Against the order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 05.09.2019, in Appeal No. 434/2016-17, deleted the additions of Rs. 7.20 crores

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Section 148, vide order dated 22.12.2016, at a total income of Rs. 7,46,34,945, resulting from additions of Rs.7,45,22,506 [AO Order Page 8]. II. Against the order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 05.09.2019, in Appeal No. 434/2016-17, deleted the additions of Rs. 7.20 crores