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

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

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

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

26,600 equity shares of M/s. TFCIL in physical form. The assessee had paid total consideration of Rs. 2.8 Lacs in respect of shares and later on these shares were sold for Rs. 86,05,364/-, i.e. Long-Term Capital Gain of Rs. 83,25,364/-. The assessee further, purchased the shares on 11.03.2012 amounting

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)

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA

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

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During eh course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

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, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

26. During assessment year 2010-11, the assessee made following investments in the following subsidiaries and joint ventures and associates:- “Subsidiaries” Chambal Infrastructure Ventures Ltd., India (‘CIVL’) CFCL Overseas Ltd., Cayman Islands (COL’) Indian Steamship Pte. Ltd, Singapore (‘ISPL’) “Joint Ventures and Associates” Indo Maroc Phosphore S.A., Morocco (‘IMACID’) Zuari Investments Ltd. (‘ZIL’) (Amount in Rs. in lacs) S. Name

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

26. During assessment year 2010-11, the assessee made following investments in the following subsidiaries and joint ventures and associates:- “Subsidiaries” Chambal Infrastructure Ventures Ltd., India (‘CIVL’) CFCL Overseas Ltd., Cayman Islands (COL’) Indian Steamship Pte. Ltd, Singapore (‘ISPL’) “Joint Ventures and Associates” Indo Maroc Phosphore S.A., Morocco (‘IMACID’) Zuari Investments Ltd. (‘ZIL’) (Amount in Rs. in lacs) S. Name

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

26. During assessment year 2010-11, the assessee made following investments in the following subsidiaries and joint ventures and associates:- “Subsidiaries” Chambal Infrastructure Ventures Ltd., India (‘CIVL’) CFCL Overseas Ltd., Cayman Islands (COL’) Indian Steamship Pte. Ltd, Singapore (‘ISPL’) “Joint Ventures and Associates” Indo Maroc Phosphore S.A., Morocco (‘IMACID’) Zuari Investments Ltd. (‘ZIL’) (Amount in Rs. in lacs) S. Name

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

26-04-2024]\nSection 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset\n(Agricultural land) Assessment year 2015-16 Assessee sold\nagricultural land in Mohali in 2014 and claimed a deduction under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain in the hands of the assessee by treating the assessee as a representative assessee for Smt. Pamela Colleco, the real and actual owner of the property on substantive basis. While deciding the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 890/JP/12 we have already held that Shri Banwari Lal Sharma, the assessee, as the agent