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.

1 year from the date of sale of capital asset. 2 Farida A Dungerpurwala Vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 52 taxamann.com 527 pronounced on 12/09/2014 by Mumbai Bench AY 2006-07 (PB No. 19 to 24) a) Date of Sale of Capital Asset: 11/10/2005 30 Indira Giri vs. ITO b) Date of Booking Flat: 04/12/2002 c) Name of Builder: Private

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain and\naccumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be\ndeleted.\"\nOriginal order in this case was passed\nu/s 143(1) - AO made disallowance for\nPF/ESI by passing rectification order u/s\n154- held AO was not justified – appeal\nof assessee allowed\n65-66\n8\nPrincipal\nCommissioner of\nIncome-tax v. SPPL\nProperty\nManagement

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

1) 59[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long- term capital asset, not being a 60residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

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

capital gain and other sources. Therefore, this clearly suggests that the ld. AO was completely satisfied with manner and substantiation of the undisclosed income declared by it. Therefore, the ld. AO was incorrect in giving finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income. 8.4 It was further submitted that as already explained that the assessee made a surrender

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)

section 37 (total of 7a to 7j)". 37 (total of 7a to 7j)". 9 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 6. Therefore, the intimation issued u/s 143(1) dated 06.03.2019 and order u/s 154 dated 10.05.2019, wherein the said apparent error was not rectified, are illegal. 7. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Chennai Tribunal

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

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

capital gain from being charged to Income Tax on the sale of property used for residence up to March 30, 1998, inasmuch as the return of Income Tax for the assessment year 1997-98 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

37. General.--(1) Any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head 'Profits

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

1) Was the purchaser, a trader and whether the purchase of the commodity and its resale allied to his usual trade or business or incidental to it? (2) What is the nature of commodity purchased and sold and in what quantity was it purchased or resold? (3) Did the purchaser by any act subsequent to the purchase improve the quality

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the time of filing return of income. Further, the appellant had claimed a deduction of Rs.17,16,540/- (50% of 10% of Adjusted Gross Total Income other than Long Term Capital Gain

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

37 ITR 242) (SC)  Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (57 ITR 21) (SC)  CIT vs. Sureshchand Goyal 298 ITR 277 (MP)  CIT vs. A Mohammed Mohideen 176 ITR 393 (Madras) In view of above, it was submitted that the AO be directed to assess the gain from sale of plots as long term capital gain

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, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1-4- 1981 Assessing Officer held that there was no cost incurred for purchase/acquisition of tenancy rights and accordingly took cost of acquisition at nil Whether case of assessee fell under section 49(1)(iii)(a) and once capital asset in question became property of assessee

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\n10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee has been receipt of show cause to\ntreat such income as bogus, as made out from penny stock and routed in the\ndisguise of long term capital gain. The notice being issued on the basis of\ninformation received from investigation wing and produced the same \"as it is\n\"without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore Trib.) [14-08-2013] 7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

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

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

section 2(47) of the Act and there is nothing in the income tax law which prohibits the same. Therefore, in the instant case, as a general proposition, once a land is deemed to be transferred to the firm by way of capital contribution by a partner u/s 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the subsequent registration

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

gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business. (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore\nTrib.) [14-08-2013]\n7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

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