SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153C of the Act,\nnotices was issued for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 on 27.03.2023 by\nld. AO which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing portal.\nReturn of income has been filed by the assessee in response to the notice\nu/s 153C of the Act on 26.04.2023. No additional income was declared in\nthe return

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.

gain in a scheme framed in this respect by the Central Government till the amount is invested for purchase of residential house. The substantive provision, on one hand, promotes housing and in a way leads us to assess the intention of the assessee and if the intention of the assessee is to purchase a new property and that is fulfilled

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

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

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

gains. 25. In the present case, there is admittedly no registration of the transfer under Registration Act and no stamp duty has been paid. Therefore, provisions of section 50C cannot be invoked. The case is therefore, covered only under section 45(3).” 21. In light of above discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 45(2) of the Act and compute the capital gains upto to the date of conversion into stock in trade, and thereafter on actual sale of the land i.e. the difference between the value of sale and stock in trade to be considered as " business income".” 30

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

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and 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 and accordingly treating it as a long term capital gain

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

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act for exemption of the capital gain from being charged to Income Tax on the sale of property used for residence up to March 30

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein

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

30 ITA No. 312/JP/2021 Shri Manohar Lal Chugh, Jaipur. cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares are genuine. Even otherwise

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)

30 ITA No. 312/JP/2021 Shri Manohar Lal Chugh, Jaipur. cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares are genuine. Even otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

Capital Gain and assessed the said gain as ‘undisclosed cash credit’ under section 68 of the IT Act and included the same in income of appellant (taxable @ 30

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also erred in not treating the reassessment order passed as illegal, unjustified and void-ad-initio. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in sustaining an addition of Rs. 3,29,302/- as short term capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

30 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 7. To support the contention so raised reliance was placed on the following evidence / records: S. No PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. Copy of Return of Income along with Computation of Income filed u/s 139 of 1-6 1. Income Tax Act, 1961 Copy of Balance Sheet and Capital account along with notes of accounts