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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

200/-. The AO in his order assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.5,61,08,400/- after making disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,46,879 (i.e. Rs.15,51,701/- towards PF and Rs. 95,178/- towards ESI) due to the fact that contribution of EPF/ESI of employees contribution was deposited beyond

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital gain.” 2. The ground No. 1 of assessee’s appeal is against the finding of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he has not accepted the contention of the assessee that the plots on the agriculture land belongs to the HUF and not to the assessee in his individual capacity. As per ld. CIT(A), the assessee has failed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

200/-which was a voluntary declaration.\n3.2 The very fact of the assessee declaring additional income during the course of survey itself, is admitted by the AO at various places including penalty order page 3 para (e) and even in their D-GOA.\n3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

section 139(1) of the IT Act on 30.08.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 11,00,27,200/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

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

section 139(1) of the IT Act on 30.08.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 12,01,09,200/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 10,87,68,470/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain

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 139 (1

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

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,03,648/- found credited in the books of account of the assessee, the liability to pay back the same had ceased to exist and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly treated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 is regarding disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 54. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31st July, 2014 2. declaring total income of Rs. 8,85,82,260/- including long term capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land and building. The assessee sold agricultural land along with construction

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 MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain. The AO, however, made additions on Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. account of unexplained investment by them on account of cash payment reflected in the seized material. Therefore, the AO has not disturbed the sale consideration received by the assessee and his two sons in respect of sale of land. Accordingly, when the transaction of sale

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

1,10,200/-. 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

1,10,200/-. 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory