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. Sections 54EA, 54EB and 54EC also provide deduction from long- term capital gain if the sale proceeds/long-term capital gain is invested in specified assets within a period of 6 months from the date of transfer. It is not possible for an assessee to make the required investment under the aforesaid sections at the point of conversion of capital asset

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

45 for computing capital gain arising out of such transfer. In the present case the asset was converted into stock-in-trade before 1-4- 1985. Even assuming that before 1-4-1985 such conversion could not be said to be transfer within the meaning of section 2(47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

45 for computing capital gain arising out of such transfer. In the present case the asset was converted into stock-in-trade before 1-4- 1985. Even assuming that before 1-4-1985 such conversion could not be said to be transfer within the meaning of section 2(47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4

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

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 of one year before or 61[two years] after

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

4. CIT v. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal,[2011] 15 taxmann.com 146/203 Taxman 203/339 ITR 610 (Punj. & Har.), it has been held as under : 14 Renu Jain vs. ITO 6. Section 54 of the Act contemplates that the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long term capital asset, but if the assessee within a period of one year before

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.

45 - 72) 4. ITR was picked up for ‘Limited Scrutiny’ vide Notice u/s 143(2) dated 26/09/2017 for the following reasons: i) Whether Deduction from capital gains has been claimed correctly? ii) Whether Investment and Income relating to properties duly disclosed? 5. Vide the assessment order dated 22/12/2018, the Ld. AO granted the part exemption

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

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

4 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal 5. Ground No. 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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4:- The appellant has claimed that the deeming of provision of section 50C has a limited scope only to the extent of and for the purpose of section 48. It is further claimed that the process of arriving at Capital Gains and Exemption u/s 54 are two distinct and separate processes. It is further argued that section 54F being

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45(1) Capital gains.—Any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54 EA, 54EA, 54 EB, 54F, 54G and 54H, be chargeable to income tax under the head "capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

45 to 55 of the IT Act. Similarly, section 11(1A) of the IT Act provides the exemption and this exemption is only for the purpose of application of the net consideration for acquiring the new capital asset being the property held under Trust. Thus the provisions of section 50C become irrelevant or inapplicable once the actual consideration/net consideration received

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

45 and, therefore, its transfer is not subject to income tax under the head “Capital gains”. Thus it is clear that the ruling laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is based on specific facts and nature of capital asset being goodwill which is self generated as it is not possible to determine the date when it comes into

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

4) of Section 45 deals with a distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body individuals or otherwise. If in the course of such distribution of capital asset there is a transfer of a capital asset by the firm in favour of a person and it results in profits or gains

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 45 cannot stand. Hence, bifurcation is necessary 12 Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pareek, Jaipur. between the site and the building for the purposes of capital gains. Therefore, profits arising from the sale of site are required to be treated separately from profits arising from the sale of building. Now, in the present case, the assessee received

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

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

gain as bears to the whole of the capital\ngain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net\nconsideration, shall not be charged under section 45:\nExplanation.-For the purposes of this section-\"net consideration\" in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value\nof the consideration received or accruing

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND KHANDELWAL, NAGAR PALIKA KI GALI RAJGARH, C/O- JAIN & CO. 228, CITY CENTRE, S.C. ROAD, JAIPUR-2368066,ALWAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 530/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal The Pr.Cit Vs. Nagar Palika Ki Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Dmapk 5188 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Manisha Chandra, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 19-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

4 Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal vs Pr.CIT, Alwar business income instead of capital gains after computing the capital gains u/s 45(2) of the Act. The ld. Pr.CIT has then proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Thus it was held that order passed by the AO dated 27-03-2017 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

LATE SHRI RAMAVTAR GUPTA L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI C/O- JAIN & CO.228, CITY CENTRE, S.C. ROAD, JAIPUR-2368066,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 529/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta The Pr.Cit Vs. L/H Smt.Shanti Devi, 82, Nagar Palika Ki Alwar Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Bdgpr 3689 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 18-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

4 Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta vs Pr.CIT, Alwar view of the ld. Pr.CIT, the transactions should have been judged as business income instead of capital gains after computing the capital gains u/s 45(2) of the Act. The ld. Pr.CIT has then proceeded to pass the impugned order ex-parte. Thus it was held that order passed

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

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, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)". 4