LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

47) read with section 45(3), it is clear that when a capital asset owned by a partner is contributed to the firm, there is transfer in the previous year in which such capital asset is contributed in the firm and for the purpose of computation of capital gain

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

section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of 45[one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased46], or has within a period of three years after that date 47[constructed, one residential house in India], 46then], instead of the capital gain

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

47,290 Indexed cost of MittiBharai Rs. 1,78,802 Rs. 7,32,716 Capital Gain Rs.2,67,284 4.3.1 When the notice u/s 142(1) was given for invoking the provisions of sec.50C of the IT Act, the appellant had filed the revised computation of long term capital gain, which is as under: Sales consideration value

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)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

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)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

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)

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any rights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of the capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not involve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

gain in such circumstances, i.e., the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. There is no ambiguity found in the said provision. Under section 2(47

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

gain in such circumstances, i.e., the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset. There is no ambiguity found in the said provision. Under section 2(47

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10(38) :-\n\"Long-term capital gain arising on transfer of equity share or units of equity\noriented mutual fund or units of business trust is not chargeable to tax in the\nhands of any person, if following conditions are satisfied:\nThe transaction i.e. the transaction of sale of equity shares or units of an equity\noriented mutual fund

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

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any\nrights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of\nthe capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not\ninvolve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

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

Section 2(47) refers to the extinguishment of any\nrights in the capital assets, it does not use the expression extinguishment of\nthe capital assets. Therefore, it seems, that such amalgamation does not\ninvolve a transfer within 2(47) and no tax under the head capital gain

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

47), i.e. definition of "transfer", which would enable the assessee to get the benefit under section 54 of the Act” As per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be given while considering a claim for exemption from tax. Basis the same, section 54F of the Act was inserted

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)

47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to 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)

47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

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)

47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to 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)

47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,789/-. This has been accepted by the AO. Since assessee has purchased the residential land for Rs.23,41,728/- and Rs.45,00,000/- is deposited in capital gain account scheme, totaling to Rs.68,41,728/-, 5 Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pareek, Jaipur. assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 to work out capital gain separately on sale of house

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Section 2(47) (v) of the Income Tax Act the transfer is completed and long term capital gain arising the said