INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between the stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation, out of the scope of adjustments contemplated in the computation of capital gains

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)

1(3), JAIPUR income as well as calculation on long term capital gain which is available at page 5 of the assessment order. The AO noted that in the revised computation of long term capital gain, the assessee adopted the consideration value from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.19,31,391/- as per provisions of Section 50C

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

Capital Gain, Assessing Officer is directed to allow the indexed cost of acquisition as claimed by assessee at Rs. 14,40,380/- as claimed by the assessee as against of Rs. 1,98,776/-,allowed by Assessing Officer. The 2nd issue is whether provisions of section 50C

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1 ITR (Trib.) 452. While upholding the applicability of section 50C to the facts of the case, the Tribunal observed that section 45 provided a general rule that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital

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

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

1)(a) are\ncomplied with by the assessee and the assessee shall be eligible for\ndeduction in respect of the whole of the capital gains so computed under\nsection 45 read with section 48 and section 50C

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1), Assessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes 10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.) “..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

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

50C and 254, of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital assets (Agricultural land) - Assessment year 2013-\n14 - Assessee sold certain parcels of land and claimed that said land was agricultural\nland and, thus, capital gain arising from sale of said land was not chargeable to tax\nAssessing Officer held that land was capital asset on ground that land

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1), Assessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes 10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.) “..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1), Assessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation Officer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes 10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.) “..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1),\nAssessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation\nOfficer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes\n10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1),\nAssessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation\nOfficer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes\n10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1),\nAssessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation\nOfficer under section 50C(2) - Held, yes\n\n10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains

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

50C are applicable in respect of the capital gain assessable in the hands of a trust. So far as the exemption available to the Trust in respect of the Capital gain arising from sale of capital asset being property held under Trust, section 11(1A) of the IT Act contemplates the treatment of such income is applicable which reads

METAL EXTRUSION INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

capital gains shall be computed on the basis of such consideration under section 48 of the Income-tax Act. The scope of section 50C was extended w.e.f. A.Y. 2010-11 to the transaction which were executed through agreement to sell or power of attorney by inserting the word "assessable" alongwith words "the value so adopted or assessed". Hence, section 50C

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains as per section 50C(1) of the Act. The appellant vide its letter dated 9.12.2012 has contested the adoption

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, ITA No. 302/JP/2017 is dismissed and ITA No

section 50C(1) of the Act and taken value of Rs. 29,32,189/- as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

50C. The value adopted for stamp duty is to be considered as full value of consideration for the purpose of computing the capital gains under s. 48. Sec. 54F(1) says that capital gains is to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-ss. (a) and (b) of s. 54F(1)of the Act. In the instant

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

50C, indexation cost of acquisition and long term capital gain on each of the transactions constituted a tangible material for the AO to form the belief that income assessable to tax in the long term capital gain has escaped assessment. At the time of formation of belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO is not required