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)

49,93,000 34,45,634 2015-16 27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

section 49, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Cost of acquisition [Transfer of tenancy right] - Assessment year 2009-10-Assessee transferred tenancy right in a property which was inherited from her grandfather who had acquired the same in 1944-45-While computing capital gains, assessee claimed cost of acquisition being fair market value as on 1

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)] 40[41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43[***], being buildings or 44lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house44, the income of which is chargeable under the head

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.”

section 49(1) of the Act then, the cost of acquisition would be fair market value as on 01.04.1984. Thus, the ld. DR has submitted that even in case the cost of acquisition is nill in the hand of the assessee the capital gain

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

49,76,120/-. The Return of the assessee company was processed u/s 143(1), vide order dated 6.03.2019, wherein ld. AO (CPC) made various disallowances amounting to Rs. 96,13,158. Such disallowances made by the ld. AO(CPC) were mistake apparent on record. Resultantly, assessee company filed 3 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR rectification

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

49 (Hyderabad- Trib.), the ITAT held that\r\nto be eligible to make claim under section 80-IA or any other section of Chapter\r\nVI A, assessee should have filed return of income under section 139(1) and\r\neven if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file\r\nrevised return making such

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)

49,954 Security guard Rs. 40,000 Security guard Rs. 21,361 Rs. 15,63,529 Total income Rs. 3,67,862 4.3.2 The AO observed that the assesee has documentary evidence in support of boundary wall and mittibharai which has also been enhanced or adjusted in the revised computation to reduce the long term capital gain. The AO further

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

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

1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 72,49,655/- on account of short term capital gain by: (a) holding that when a capital assets has been genuinely transferred as per the provisions of section

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

49,47,253/- as business income. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18.11.2014 after considering the facts of the case and also the various case laws including the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court directed the AO to assess the income from sale of these plots under the head “Income from Capital Gains”. The appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that

RAM LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act therefore, the cost of the acquisition of the property for the purpose of computing the capital gain

SHRI GOPI RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act therefore, the cost of the acquisition of the property for the purpose of computing the capital gain

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

capital gain cannot be\ntreated as bogus then the addition made by AO is not sustainable and hence\ndeleted.\nC. Reliance is also placed on the following cases:-\nCIT Vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 102 DTR 0342 (Raj.)\nIn this case, assessee had shown LTCG from the sale of shares and same was\nclaimed as exempt

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

1),— (a) where a capital asset, being property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, is transferred and the whole or any part of the net consideration is utilised for acquiring another capital asset to be so held, then, the capital gain arising from the transfer shall be deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

gains tax which is not intended by a legislature. Therefore, the argument of the revenue which runs counter to the legislative intent cannot be accepted. 21. Apart from the above, Section 55(1)(b)(2)(ii) of the Act provides that where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified under Section 49

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain short term and long term both and income from other 23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 3,95,30,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assesee was not required to maintain regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB