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

5 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal Development Agreement contained in paras 10. 11, 12, 13 and 14 and appreciating the legal position has held the gain to be chargeable to tax under the head Capital Gains. The ld. AR has further submitted that ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the following facts: (i) The land was not purchased

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

Section 2(14), read with\nsection 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital asset (Agricultural land)\n Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee sold agricultural land situated beyond municipal\nlimits - Assessing Officer treated sale proceeds as long-term capital gain on the grounds\nthat land was within 5

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

5) of the\nAct dated 19.12.2024.\n2. As the issues in both appeals are similar, related, and were heard\ntogether by consent, they are disposed of by this common order.\n3. The hearing of the appeal was conducted after issue of proper\nnotices to both the parties with a option to attend in virtual mode or in\nphysical

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Capital Gains and Exemption u/s 54 are two distinct and separate processes. It is further argued that section 54F being an exemption provision, is a separate and 5 Lal Chand Meena complete code in itself It does not warrant reading into any other deeming provision. The appellant has quoted the judgment of Hon'ble Tribunal in its favour

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i)In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

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)

Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain (if any) was on transfer

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)

Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain (if any) was on transfer

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)

Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain (if any) was on transfer

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)

Section 45(5)(a) of the the financial year 2005/2006 and Act, the consideration received as such capital gain (if any) was on transfer

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

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

45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act.\nThe decisions of the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. The subject issue was not for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka\nHigh Court and hence, the same doesn't support the case of the revenue. We are\ntherefore of the considered view that

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.”\n(i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

gain arising to an assessee\nunder section 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be\nexcluded from calculation of deemed profits under section\n115JA - Held, yes.”\n(i)In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.),\nMumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not\nconstitute income under the Act cannot be brought

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5(2) read with section 6 of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The (Vivad se Vishwas) scheme also highlights the point that once the taxpayers decide to resolve the dispute with the tax authority under this scheme, then the amount payable would be considered final and such cases will not be opened again for proceeding under

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

45 of the IT Act, 1961. The long term capital gain tax levied by\nA.O. on the sale of said agricultural land is wrong and unjustified.\nIn view of the above discussion and evidence furnished by the Id. A/R, we find no\njustification to sustain the addition. Thus the additions made by the AO and sustained

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

45-48 reflecting sale consideration received 3. Copy of D-MAT account reflecting shares sold 40-41 4. Copy of statement of holding of shares 37 5. Copy of request for D-MAT of shares 38-39 6. Copy of bank pass book reflecting payment for 35-36 purchase of shares 7. Copy of debit note dated