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 Rs 94,28,948/- and after claiming deduction under section 54F of the same amount Net Income from

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)

28-12-2021. In response to the notice, the assessee filed reply on 3-1-2022 furnishing computation of income, sale deed and bank accounts. The AO noted that in the computation of income, the asseessee had disclosed only income under the head capital gain. The calculationof long term capital gain submitted by the assessee is as under:- ‘’Computation

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 143(2) was issued on 28-07-2016 and duly served.\n3. Business Background and Investment in Shares:\ni.\nThe assessee is an individual and drew salary from AmitRishabH.Builder\nPvt. Ltd. and also deriving income from capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

28,65,591/- (Long Term Capital Gain) during the course of Income Declaration Seheme (IDS) in 2016 and paid due tax thereupon. Thus the assessee offered her undisclosed income which was earlier claimed exempt under the garb of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of share. It is well settled principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice

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)

Section 143(3) of the Act..” In the instant case specific request was made for copy of report as well as copies of statements recorded of different persons. 10. In respect of the circumstantial evidences the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has not disturbed the settled position of law that circumstantial evidences can be looked into only when direct evidences

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 143(3) of the Act..” In the instant case specific request was made for copy of report as well as copies of statements recorded of different persons. 10. In respect of the circumstantial evidences the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has not disturbed the settled position of law that circumstantial evidences can be looked into only when direct evidences

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)

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed, in computing the income referred to in section 28 of the Act. Section 28 pertains to computation of profits and gains

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)

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed, in computing the income referred to in section 28 of the Act. Section 28 pertains to computation of profits and gains

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)

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed, in computing the income referred to in section 28 of the Act. Section 28 pertains to computation of profits and gains

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)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

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)

28 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the meaning of transfer and the assessee is liable for capital gain and the ld. AO has based on the prevalent rate charged the capital gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised

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)

28 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the meaning of transfer and the assessee is liable for capital gain and the ld. AO has based on the prevalent rate charged the capital gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised

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)

28 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the meaning of transfer and the assessee is liable for capital gain and the ld. AO has based on the prevalent rate charged the capital gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised

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)

28 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. the meaning of transfer and the assessee is liable for capital gain and the ld. AO has based on the prevalent rate charged the capital gain to the assessee and the same should be sustained. To support the various contentions so raised

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

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

capital gains so computed under\nsection 45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions\nof the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held\nthat the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the\nfull amount invested

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

28,270/-, after\nmaking addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 9,45,817/- by treating the long term\ncapital gain [claimed exempt u/s 10(38)] as accommodation entry and thus bogus,\nand further adding an amount of Rs.18,916/- u/s 69C holding that assessee has\npaid commission for obtaining such accommodation entry. The relevant para of\norder

SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 28 of the 1894 Act is to be treated as compensation and to be dealt with under "Capital gains

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Gain by alleging that Agriculture Land sold by assessee\ncompany as Capital Asset as per Income Tax Act,1961 arbitrarily,\nBrief facts pertaining to these grounds of appeal are that during the year\nunder consideration, assessee has sold two agricultural lands located in\nvillages JorashiKhalasa and GarhiJaju of Tehsil Samalakha (Distt.\nPanipat) for a total consideration of Rs.62