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), then,— (i) the amount not so utilized shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid. Sec. 54F: [Capital gain

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

45 Long term capital Gain infact the provisions of Section\n50C or section 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable in the present case but the Learned AO\nadded difference between consideration as per stamp value authority and sale\nconsideration disclosed by Humble Appellant to income of Humble Appellant.\nii.\niii.\nThat the Humble appellant has sold out an Agriculture

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

45-51].Return in compliance to\nnotice u/s.153C was filed by the assessee on 26.04.2023.\n4.\nThat the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated 12.10.2023 [PB 52-56] u/s.\n142(1) of the Act to the assessee for the assessment years 2015-2016 to 2021-\n2022 wherein details were sought. Assessee vide replies dated 18.10.2023 &\n21.10.2023 sought copy of satisfaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

1 and 2 of the revenue’s appeal is interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in considering the value of 35% land area transferred to developer as Long Term Capital Gain instead of business income of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the assesse has entered into development agreement for real

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1 ITR (Trib.) 452. While upholding the applicability of section 50C to the facts of the case, the Tribunal observed that section 45 provided a general rule that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nwas carried out on 13.06.2019 at the various premises of Dewan Group.\n\n14\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nAssessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act,\n1961

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 and therefore is not a capital asset. The\nland being agricultural land which is not a capital asset and hence no capital gain tax is\nleviable thereon u/s 45 of the Act and long term capital gain tax levied by Ld. A.O. on the\nsale of said agricultural land

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

gains under section 48 of the Act. Therefore, in the\ninstant case, the provisions of section 54F(1)(a) are complied with by the assessee\nand the assessee shall be eligible for deduction in respect of the whole of the capital\n11\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\ngains so computed under section 45

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

Capital Gains Accounts Scheme (CGAS) and also failed to purchase House Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31-7-2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

1 As the land was acquired by JDA in As per Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

1 As the land was acquired by JDA in As per Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

1 As the land was acquired by JDA in As per Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

1 As the land was acquired by JDA in As per Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

capital gains tax. The Tribunal emphasized that since the income was exempt, there was no obligation for the assessee to file an ITR. Consequently, the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was deleted. This ruling underscores that the non-filing of an ITR, when the only income is from the tax-exempt sale of rural agricultural land, does

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47) to include exchange, relinquishment and extinguishment of an asset and is not merely restricted to sale of capital asset. Since investment of the appellant in shares of CTL constituted 'capital asset within

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)

capital in nature at the point of time it was received, by efflux of time the money has become the assessees own money. What remains after adjustment of the deposits has not been claimed by the customers. The claims of the customers have become barred by limitation. The assessee itself has treated the money as its own money and taken