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 the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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)

32,716 Capital Gain Rs.2,67,284 4.3.1 When the notice u/s 142(1) was given for invoking the provisions of sec.50C of the IT Act, the appellant had filed the revised computation of long term capital gain, which is as under: Sales consideration value 50C Rs 19,31,391 Less: Indexed cost of purchase Rs.2,06,624 Indexed cost

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

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

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm in which ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur he becomes a partner, by way of capital contribution, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place. In other words, the year

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 68 of the IT act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of\nshares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs.1,51,869/- being the\ndeemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the\nmain issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable”.\n4. Shri Vivek Agarwal vs. ITO (2017) 292/JP/2017 (ITAT Jaipur) Order

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

32 / (1977) 106 ITR 1 held as under: "At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital gains in accordance with the provisions of section 45(2) as well as business income on sale of such plots. The ground no. 2 of the assessee is disposed off with above directions. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 32

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

capital gain earned towards consideration of new residential house within extended period u/s 139(4) of the Act, the claim made by assessee for exemption u/s 54F of the Act could not be denied. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur in the case of ACIT Vs. Maya Devi Sharma in ITA No. 71/JP/15 dated 25.07.2017 (relevant Para

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

32, a building which is entitled for depreciation would mean only the superstructure and would not include the site. Under section 48 of the Act, the income chargeable under the head "Capital gains

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains on sale of assets. Section 48 of the income tax Act defines the index as what is notified by the Central Government every year, having regard to 75 per cent or average rise in the consumer price index (CPI) for urban non-manual employees for the immediately preceding previous year. (iii) we consider that price of a capital asset

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

32 DTR 0243 (Kar.), it has been held as under :— 8. The section 54(2) declares that within one year from the date of transfer if the capital gain

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 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)

32,33,482/- made by the AO for which the ld. AR filed the following written submission. Ground-wise submission is as under: Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 1.6 and 2: In all these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.31,70,080/- made by ld.AO

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

section 32(1) and thus has rightly claimed and been allowed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). (b) The payment of land tax and service tax was made in the year under consideration against the demand and therefore same is otherwise allowable u/s 43B. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Kota 4. The AO thereafter

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

32,81,670, Subsequently it was found that the assessee has transacted in shares of Midland Polymers PMC Fincorp Ltd. to the tune of 86,31,724/- against which the assessee has declared Rs.15,72,409/- under IDS Scheme 2016. Thus a sum of Rs.70,59,315/- remained unexplained and thereby the same was as per provision of section

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

capital gain in a short period does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. So unless the assessing officer list out all traders, buyers sellers and their share brokers of the mentioned shares and further links them with the assessee or his share broker or the person who bought the shares

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

capital gain in a short period does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. So unless the assessing officer list out all traders, buyers sellers and their share brokers of the mentioned shares and further links them with the assessee or his share broker or the person who bought the shares

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

capital gain in a short period does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. So unless the assessing officer list out all traders, buyers sellers and their share brokers of the mentioned shares and further links them with the assessee or his share broker or the person who bought the shares

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

capital gain in a short period does not mean that the transaction is bogus as all the documents and evidences have been produced. So unless the assessing officer list out all traders, buyers sellers and their share brokers of the mentioned shares and further links them with the assessee or his share broker or the person who bought the shares