DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

section 54EC on account of investment in bonds. 7 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal Thereafter, the assessee revised the return of income and offered long term capital gain of Rs. 5,23

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

capital gains. 2.3 Circular No. 672 dated 6/10/1993 reads as under: Whether allotment of flats/houses by co-operative societies and other institutions, whose schemes of allotment and construction are similar to those of DDA, should be treated as cases of construction for purposes of sections 54 and 54F 1. Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No. 471, dated

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

23,201/- u/s 54 of the Act which at PB pages 16 to 18. Before proceeding further, we want to evaluate Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act which are reproduced below. ‘’Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1)] 40[41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case

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

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

section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 6. The ld DR vehemently argued the matter and relied on the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that subsequent to formation of partnership firm and transfer

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

23,696/- u/s 68 and Rs. 1,45,421/- u/s 69C of the Act respectively. 2.4 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by dismissing the appeal of the assessee and the relevant observation of the ld. CIT(A) is mentioned as under:- ‘’6.3. I have carefully considered the matter. From a reading

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

capital gains conversion of investment, into stock in trade but postpones the charge of tax to the time, such stock in trade is sold or transferred. Once converted into stock in trade, the asset will continue to be treated as stock in trade, as mentioned in the section itself. Application of provisions of Section 45(2) will not reconvert

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

section 10(38) of the Act.\nWe are afraid if such a way, we take a view that the gain arrived by a valid\nprocess be considered as bogus gain and unexplained then the mess will\nbe created no corporate entity will get the capital and the purpose of capital\nmarket will vanish. The contention of the revenue that

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

23 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar circumstances of the case, have either decided a particular transaction as a disposal of capital asset rendering it to be brought to tax under the head “capital gains” or as adventure in the nature of trade rendering it to be brought to tax as a disposal of stock

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

capital gain earned towards consideration of new residential house within extended period u/s 139(4) of the Act, the claim made by assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act could not be denied. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur in the case of ACIT Vs. Maya Devi Sharma in ITA No. 71/JP/15 dated 25.07.2017 (relevant Para

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

gains, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1-4- 1981 Assessing Officer held that there was no cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee

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

23,66,223/- so received were deposited in Canara Bank on 03.12.2011. On the same day, out of the maturity proceeds of FDRs, the assessee has made fresh deposits of FDRs of Rs. 22,50,000/- and this time, these FDRs were maintained with Canara Bank under the capital gain account scheme. These facts are also corroborated by the bank

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

Capital Gain which is clear from the following chart:- Financial Assessment Area in Sale Income offered as Year Year sq ft sold Consideration business income

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

Capital Gain which is clear from the following chart:- Financial Assessment Area in Sale Income offered as Year Year sq ft sold Consideration business income

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)

23-01-2020 for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,70,080/- made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 by alleging

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

23,25,295\n(Capital\nGain)\nmultiplied\nby\n27,50,000\n(Amount\ninvested\nor\ntransaction\nvalue) divided\nby\n27,93,000\n(Net\nConsideration)\n=2325295*27500\n00/2793000\n|Taxable\nCapital Gain\n|NIL\n|4,595,657\n|35,799\nSo the problem is the calculation of deduction u/s 54F i.e. net consideration\nbased on transaction value

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

capital gains. If indexation is linked to the period of holding the asset and in the case of an assessee covered under Section 49(1) of the Act, the period of holding the asset has to be determined by including the period for which the said asset was held by the previous owner, then obviously in arriving at the indexation

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee filed appeal before Tribunal after delay of 2208 days - Assessee filed an application to condone delay along with affidavit explaining cause for delay that order passed

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

23-01-2020 for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 30,04,864/- made by Ld. AO u/s 68 of the 1. T. Act, 1961 by alleging