SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 54F(1) which grants exemption from Capital gain tax where a flat is purchased either within one year prior to the sale of capital asset or within 2 years after the date of sale of the capital asset or where a residential house is constructed within 3

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.

capital gain account scheme before due date of filing of return under section 139(1) - Whether booking of flat with a builder was a case of construction and not purchase of residential flat and, therefore, time period applicable would be 3

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)

1. Section 2(47 ) of the Income-tax Act provides that any conver-sion of capital assets into stock-in-trade shall be regarded as a transfer. This transfer arises in the year in which such conver-sion takes place and, accordingly, capital gain would normally arise in that very year. However, section 45(2) of the Act post-pones

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

gain as is equal to the amount, if any, by which the appropriate fraction of the amount utilised for acquiring the new asset exceeds the appropriate fraction of the cost of the transferred asset. Explanation.—In this sub- section,— (i) "appropriate fraction" means the fraction which represents the extent to which the income derived from the capital asset transferred

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

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)

1(3), JAIPUR income as well as calculation on long term capital gain which is available at page 5 of the assessment order. The AO noted that in the revised computation of long term capital gain, the assessee adopted the consideration value from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.19,31,391/- as per provisions of Section

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

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

3) Further, assessee can also claim exemption, if the capital gain is utilized within the time limit u/s 139(4) even though nothing is deposited in the capital gain account within time limit u/s 139(1) as first limb of section

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

1)(c) to this section 271AAB is applicable in the case of the assessee as she does not substantiated the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived” 8.1 It was further submitted that the source of income has clearly been explained by the assessee in response to the answer to question no.3 wherein he has explained that

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

1(3), JAIPUR SEBI enquiry cannot be a basis for addition: - The main reason of addition is the enquiry made by SEBI that these companies are involved in price rigging and thereby helping others in purchasing the capital gain. This cannot be considered as conclusive evidence to hold the assessee as liable for making addition in the income tax proceedings

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,71,67,000/- in respect of purchase of property in cash invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. However no disallowance was made in respect of cash payment for stamp duties and court fees paid by the assessee. 9. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). It was contended before

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain short term and long term both and income from other 23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 3,95,30,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assesee was not required to maintain regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them: 22 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur (i) Subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (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] 8. Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021 : Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] held that [PB : 3]: 10 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 7. Failure to adhere to the mandatory

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 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 Gain for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1

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 VS ITO, WARD 1(3

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period