RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

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.

C Capital Gain (A-B) 1431596/- D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 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

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section 54B of ITA. Out of the money so received on sale of stock in trade, assessee invested

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

27 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed to condone the delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1, Roshan Lal, humbly submit this request for condonation of delay in filing my appeal (Form

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

Capital Gain on which deduction under section 54/54F was claimed 12. In view of above facts and circumstances it is submitted that this old super structure on the land was demolished by the assessee in the year 2004 and further after division of the land between the assessee and his wife on 10/6/2011, the assessee was having only vacant land

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

capital gain on sale of shares of company 'N'. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was 13 ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023 & CO No. 04/JP/2023 DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma required to furnish name of stock exchange through which shares were purchased and sold along with the rate of shares of the stock exchange on date of purchase and sale. The assessee

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)

c)-v In view of the above facts and discussions, the working of the Capital Gain at Rs.17,24,767/- by the Authorities Below and taxing the same are obviously incorrect and the same deserve to be deleted summarily for the reasons as explained in the fore-gone paras.’’ 13 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR To support

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gains arising therefrom has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee by the Assessing officer in AY 2008-09. 10 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR C. FINDING OF LD. AO DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS: Since no adequate reply was furnished by the assessee, ld. AO levied the penalty. D. Written submissions made

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

gain of ₹27,87,561/-was added to the assessee's\nincome from other sources and taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE.\nii.\niii. Additionally, it was determined that an 6% commission (₹1,85,530/-\ncalculated at a reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C.\niv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section

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

1,98,776/-,allowed by Assessing Officer. The 2nd issue is whether provisions of section 50C are applicable. Since in earlier para, I have held that the income from sale of property is to be taxed under the head long term capital gain, therefore provisions of section 50C are applicable. Accordingly, the value substituted by Assessing Officer with

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

27,90,625 has been decided to paid as under 1. Rs. 3,00,00,000 till 26.05.2012 (i.e. value of land admeasuring 12 Bigha) 29 ITA No. 94 & CO. No. 22/JPR/2025 Smt. Kamla Prabha L/h Late Sh. Gopal Lal Ji Goswami 2. 1,50,00,000 till 26.12.2012 3. Remaining amount till 26.05.2013 4. It is also agreed

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

27,862/- which is the total of Mark to Mark (MTM) value irrespective of minus or plus. Thus, ld. AO observed that the assessee is required to keep and maintain books of account u/s. 44AA and the total sales turnover is exceeding to the prescribed limit for getting the audited books of 5 M/s Rakesh Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO accounts

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gainfully made : Section 271AAB: Penalty where search has been initiated Section 271 AAB of the income Tax Act read as under: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, [but before

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation 153A & assessed at same amount 336/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,738/- 25 No No Yes* 337/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 30,380/- 25 No No Yes 338/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,736/- 25 No No Yes 339/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 49,521/- 25 No No Yes 340/JP/2023 271(1

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation 153A & assessed at same amount 336/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,738/- 25 No No Yes* 337/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 30,380/- 25 No No Yes 338/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,736/- 25 No No Yes 339/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 49,521/- 25 No No Yes 340/JP/2023 271(1

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation 153A & assessed at same amount 336/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,738/- 25 No No Yes* 337/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 30,380/- 25 No No Yes 338/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,736/- 25 No No Yes 339/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 49,521/- 25 No No Yes 340/JP/2023 271(1

PRIYANKA KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

Section Penalty Delay Submission Written Returned Amount of submission filed u/s condonation 153A & assessed at same amount 336/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,738/- 25 No No Yes* 337/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 30,380/- 25 No No Yes 338/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 4,736/- 25 No No Yes 339/JP/2023 271(1)(c) 49,521/- 25 No No Yes 340/JP/2023 271(1