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

capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilized by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under Section

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

Section 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the assessment passed U/s 143(3) dated 26/12/2017 has so far not been considered or decided by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the objection of the assessee that no proceeding U/s 263

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

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

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

1. This decision was given in context of The Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and The Registration Act, 1908. In that context, it was held that the registered deed of conveyance is the only mode of legal transfer. This decision is not in context of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore not applicable

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

1) of section 10 of the Depositories Act, 1996, and for the purposes of— (i) section 48; and (ii) proviso to clause (42A) of section 2, the cost of acquisition and the period of holding of any securities shall be determined on the basis of the first-in-first-out method.” CIRCULAR NO. 768,DATED 24-6-1998 This

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Though the LTCG arising on sale of shares of listed companies is exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act, however, during the course of search and seizure action on 2nd July, 2015 the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has surrendered

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of Equity oriented Mutual Fund in which total fund invest was Rs. 1,99,000 only. The assessee was neither incurred any expenditure to earn this exempt nor claimed any expenditure in return of income. 2. As per the provisions of section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 and rules 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962 which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Though the LTCG arising on sale of shares of listed companies is exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act, however, during the course of search and seizure action on 2nd July, 2015 the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has surrendered

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

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

Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Though the LTCG arising on sale of shares of listed companies is exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act, however, during the course of search and seizure action on 2nd July, 2015 the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has surrendered

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 Gains are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Though the LTCG arising on sale of shares of listed companies is exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act, however, during the course of search and seizure action on 2nd July, 2015 the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has surrendered

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the revenue has not disputed the fact that the assessee has declared long term capital gain in the return of income filed U/s 139(1

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

gain any benefit because of the delayed finding and his conduct was not contumacious. 5. That keeping in view the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants across the country in filing appeals/applications etc. due to the lockdown, the Apex court of India passed an order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo motu Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the issue

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

gain any benefit because of the delayed finding and his conduct was not contumacious. 5. That keeping in view the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants across the country in filing appeals/applications etc. due to the lockdown, the Apex court of India passed an order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo motu Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the issue

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. Though the LTCG arising on sale of shares of listed companies is exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act, however, during the course of search and seizure action on 2nd July, 2015 the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4) has surrendered

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

capital gain and\nincome from other source.\n3. That the Return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on\n30.11.2018 declaring a Total Income of Rs.597,94,66,280/-. A Revised\nReturn of Income was filed on 29.03.2019 declaring a Total Income of\nRs.593,12,42,630/-.\n4. That, the assessee's case was thereafter selected for the\nscrutiny

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Capital Gain\narising from the sale of the residential house for Rs 69.90 lacs on 28.07.2017 but then\nfinally in draft assessment order he sifted to the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. In the\nimpugned assessment order he invoked S.69A first but at the end he made addition on\naccount of LTCG.\n3.1.4 From this what emerges