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)

4,5 and 6 of UIT Report from the date of UIT Report. (PB:22) 1.4. The land was thereafter converted by the assessee, from being part of his Capital Asset into Stock in Trade. Gains on the sale of such stock in trade and prior to such sale i.e. gains till the date of conversion, was computed

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

41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43[***], being buildings or 44lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house44, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from

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

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof" shall include the remission or cessation of any liability

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year" The assessee objected to such re-opening as it was hit by the first proviso to sec 147, whereby an assessment / re-assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the act is sought to be re-opened after lapse of four years

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the IT Act at Rs. 68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,03,648/- found credited in the books of account of the assessee, the liability to pay back the same had ceased to exist and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly treated

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)

41 taxmann.com 445 (Karnataka) held that "Section 55, read with section 53A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Cost of acquisition [Fair Market Value] Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether for levying capital gain tax for purpose of computing capital gain tax, fair market value, which is to be taken into consideration, is price which property would fetch

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

capital account of the assessee which was also part of the record of the assessment year 2014-15. But the AO has accepted all these details without any adverse finding or comments while passing the assessment order under section 153A or the Act. The assessee has also produced sale bills/contract notes regarding sale of shares, copy of ledger account

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

4) is piece of evidence recorded at the time of search although the same has been retracted will not make the fact corrected that there was no incriminating material, therefore, the addition was justified and supported the order of the ld. AO on this issue and as regards the addition CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar