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

200 + 3]96]000 + 3]87]000½ esa gh mlus mlds cSad [kkrs esa tek djok;k gSA cSad [kkrs esa tek jkf”k dk djnkrk ls dksbZ ysuk&nsuk ugh gS djnkrk dk ;g dguk fd mlds }kjk HUF dh tehu csph xbZ gS djnkrk dh O;fDrxr tehu ugh gS] ;g rdZ fcYdqy

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

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 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

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

3 different cities prior to\nthe date of winning of the jackpot races. The assessee has given up the winning\nfrom the jackpots immediately on same becoming taxable due to the amendment\nin the income tax act. Contradistinction to the above facts in the present case,\nassessee is consistently an investor in the shares. The holding period of the\nshares

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

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

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 to the extent of Rs. 17,60,846/- which he believed

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 to the extent of Rs. 17,60,846/- which he believed

SMT. VINEETA KUMAR,C-13, DEEPAK MARG, M.D. RAOD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR

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

section 10(38) and accordingly made addition of Rs. 3,38,161/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Before ld. CIT (A) assessee submitted that through long term capital gain of Rs. 3,38,161/- on sale of ICICI Bond is chargeable to tax but the same is required

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 143(3

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

capital expenditure u/s 37 should have been factored in by the AO while estimating the net profit @ 12.5% and replacing the net profit u/s 29 determined by the assessee and hence, separate addition on this account is not warranted. Hence, the said findings of the ld CIT(A) is set-aside and the ground no. 4 of assessee’s appeal

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

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

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

Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 01.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,18,27,200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed