ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

section 54F of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the capital gain arose on account of transfer of the plot of land in the assessment year 2006-07 and not in the assessment year 2005-06. 3. Before us, ld. AR DR has submitted that

RIMJHIM GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.116/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke Smt. Rimjhim Gupta The Ito Vs. B-101, Jawahar Enclave, Jawahar Nagar Ward- 6 (1), Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 3466 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Anil Kaushik, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 30-11-2015 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Decline The Exemption Claimed U/S 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Capital Gains Earned On Sale Of Property Which Was Reinvested In The New House Property.

gain was invested in the new house property. However, the AO treated the date of purchase of said flat as 6-02-2006 in place of assessee's claim of 18-10-2005. There is no merit in the finding of the AO for considering the date of purchase of the said flat by the assessee

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains, however, there\nare no provisions under the Income Tax Act recognising deemed purchase.\nThere can't be any deemed purchase under the Income Tax Act. In case,\nprovisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act read with Section 53A

ITO, BEHROR vs. SUCHET SINGH YADAV, BEHROR

capital gains of Rs. 1,53,11 568. 5.8 The appellant has in the course of assessment proceedings and even at the time of initiation of assessment proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act stated that the agricultural land sold does not pertain to the appellant and instead belongs to the HUF of the appellant. The land is stated

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain of Rs. 49,95,330/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and also disputed the service of notice under section 148. The ld. CIT (A) held that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 was served upon the assessee and, therefore, the ground raised by the assessee was dismissed