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

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Capital Gain w/s 50C. The mechanism is provided in the\nsection itself. If the assessee claims before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or\nassessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1

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

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Capital Gain w/s 50C. The mechanism is provided in the\nsection itself. If the assessee claims before Assessing Officer that the value adopted or\nassessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1

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 PVT. LTD.,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\n\n10.2. Anil Kumar Jain vs. ITO [2013] 34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n\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\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

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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

gains from transfer of such\nasset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing\nas a result of such transfer.\n(2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall,\nso far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or\nassessed or assessable under

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

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

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 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