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)

Capital gains". On a conjoint reading of section 45 with section 54B, to avoid such absurdity as pointed out above, the word "transfer" should be read for the purposes of income- tax the date on which the compensation amount is paid to such assessee….” 11.6 The bench also noted that for the immediately preceding assessment year

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

section 45(2). Therefore, FMV of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement will be assessed under the head capital gain and excess over such FMV can only be brought to tax as business income. 3. The ld DR has vehemently argued the matter and relied upon

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

5. Without prejudice to above, even if it is held that assessee has converted the agricultural land of HUF as stock in trade, its taxability would be governed by section 45(2). As per this section, profits & gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital

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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45 to 55A. Thus, if, after work out of deduction u/s 54F if the capital gain arose on sale of ITA159/JP/2019 Shri Naresh Jain vs ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur certain assets is not chargeable to capital gain than the loss arose to assessee on sales of another assets cannot set off from gain of such assets. It is not necessary

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. Section 32 of the Income-tax Act, inter alia, lays down that in respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned by the assessee and used for the purposes of business or profession, the assessee is entitled to deduction. In this case, we are concerned with the assessment year 1979-80. Under section

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.

Section 45(2) of the Act are applicable in this case as the assessee has sold the property by plotting to 59 different persons and consequently the income has to be assessed as business income instead of 5 Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal vs Pr.CIT, Alwar capital gains

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.

Section 45(2) of the Act are applicable in this case as the assessee has sold the property by plotting to 59 different persons and 5 Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta vs Pr.CIT, Alwar consequently the income has to be assessed as business income instead of capital gains

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

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 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