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

364/- [in November – December 2014] after holding the same for more than 12 months [more particularly around 22 months]. Consequent long term capital gain of Rs. 30,04,864/- earned from sale of these shares was declared in the return of income and as shares were of listed public limited company, sold through recognized stock exchange after holding

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains. In the report of the investigation wing listed penny stocks companies were indentified which were used for generating bogus LTCG and in this list name of the company is appearing at Sr. No. 69. The ld. DR further based on that report submitted that in the script CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD total trade

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 gain even though the claim is of the agricultural income, considering it as non-agricultural. Since the assessee has revised the claim and paid the tax due before the assessing officer, there cannot be providing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee we get support of the view that the revised return should be considered as disclosure before

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

capital gain. Hence it is simple case of difference in opinion. • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. [2018] 97 taxmann.com 278 held as under: where assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure as well as income in return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case. On the issue observed by the ld. PCIT the sufficient enquiry has already been done by the assessing officer and as regards the debatable issue the ld. AO has taken a plausible view of the matter and for that matter

METAL EXTRUSION INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

capital gains. The Income Tax Simplification Committee (Easwar Committee) has in its first report, pointed out that this provision does not provide any relief where the seller has entered into an agreement to sell the property much before the actual date of transfer of the immovable property and the sale consideration is fixed in such agreement, whereas similar provision exists

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

gain governed by the SEBI Venture Capital Regulations, 1996. The corpus fund is held by various central and state government undertaking and PSU banks for the purpose of financing venture capital undertakings. The whole idea of constitution of the trust is the pooling capital undertakings, which supports entrepreneurship and innovations. 14. From the argument

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

364 ITR 31 (SC) Claim of benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 r.w.s. 13 of the Act – Public religious trust – Whether the Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent- trust is a public religious trust and is outside the purview of Section 13(1)(b) and eligible for 24 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

Capital Gains-Exemption-Sale of agricultural land and purchase of agricultural land-condition precedent for exemption-New asset purchased must be in the name of assessee himself- Assessee purchasing land in name of son or grandson-Not entitled to exemption under section 54B-Incom-tax Act, 1961. 5.8 Accordingly, I hold that the purchase of land amounting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

capital and reserves of the said company as on 31/3/2012 was Rs. 97,21,54,685/- whereas the said company has paid the share application money to the assessee of Rs. 19.75 crores only. The department has accepted the transaction while passing the assessment orders U/s 143(3) of the Act in the share applicant. He has referred the assessment

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

capital and reserves of the said company as on 31/3/2012 was Rs. 97,21,54,685/- whereas the said company has paid the share application money to the assessee of Rs. 19.75 crores only. The department has accepted the transaction while passing the assessment orders U/s 143(3) of the Act in the share applicant. He has referred the assessment