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.

26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee has failed to deposit the unused amount in the CGAS. Appellant is making submissions on the various grounds raised before

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

section 143(3) on 24.02.2016 at an income of Rs 18,21,680/-. It has been noticed that the assessee had sold residential plot on 27.07.2012 at a sale consideration of Rs 1,00,00,000/-. Long Term Capital Gain on sold plot was arised of Rs 94,39,201/- (Sale consideration amount Rs 1,00,00,000/- Indexed cost

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

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

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

26 (Luck) (URO) and submitted that where a capital asset is contributed by a partner to a firm u/s 45(3) but such capital asset is assessed at a higher value for stamp duty purchases u/s 50C, capital gain is to be calculated with reference to the value so assessed u/s 50C and not at the value recorded

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

section 45(2). Therefore, FMV of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement will be assessed under the head capital gain and excess over such FMV can only be brought to tax as business income. 3. The ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital asset was converted into stock-in-trade, and that sales of plots in the case of such land would be treated to be business activity to make profits. 26. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also recorded the findings that the assessee had evened out the land with the help of tractor and had 27 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar

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

section 54F for availing the deduction as: a. The sale proceeds was kept separately by opening an FDR; b. Later on, when it came to the notice of the Appellant that the FDR is required to be made under Capital Gain Account Scheme, the Appellant in order to rectify the procedural mistake en-cashed the FDR deposited with ICICI bank

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

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

26 were not provided. therefore this incomplete statement cannot be read against the assessee in quasi-judicial proceedings not suppose to reply by the assessee. (ii). That the statement of Shri AnujAgarwal was recorded in what capacity during survey operation of office premises of korp securities Ltd and other companies situated at martio business house, Kolkata 01 is not mentioned

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs. 1,51,869/- being the deemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the main issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable.” We are of the view that the present appeal does

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)

gains was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. These shares were purchased by the assessee after making payment through payees account cheque which stood debited in the bank account of the assessee (APB 35-36). These shares stood sold via transaction executed through Bombay stock exchange after payment of STT (Securities ARNAV GOYAL VS ITO, WARD

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

26 of Annexure AS-1 in respect of long term capital gain earned by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri family members. The said long term capital gain was disclosed by Shri Rajendra Agarwal in his statement under section