INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

CAPITAL GAINS “Under the existing provisions of Section 54, 54B, 54D and 54F, long-term capital gains arising from the transfer

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

54B for total purchase\nprice of new agricultural land or long-term capital gain arising from sale of agricultural\nland, whichever was lower - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]".\n2.i.Therefore the learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making\nadditions of Rs.9,86,770/- U/s 45 Long term capital Gain infact the provisions of Section

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

capital gains account scheme, as we have noted above, the deposits were made on 3.12.2011 and thereafter, the assessee has filed her return of income on 14.12.2011 within time limit prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act wherein she has made the claim u/s 54F of the Act and therefore, the question arises as to whether the same

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save as otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain, the assessee claimed deduction under section 54 of the IT Act at Rs. 68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

section 54B for the sake of convenience as under:- 54B. Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

capital gain account scheme (CGAS) and claimed as deduction u/s 54B of the Act. However, the assessee failed to utilize the amount of Rs.3,33,40,000/- as per the provisions of section

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

Section 2 (14) (iii) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 and therefore is not a capital asset. The\nland being agricultural land which is not a capital asset and hence no capital gain tax is\nleviable thereon u/s 45 of the Act and long term capital gain tax levied by Ld. A.O. on the\nsale of said agricultural land

SHRI MATHUR LAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

54B. [(1)] [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises] from the transfer of a capital

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

section 54B of the Act on 25.08.2016, i.e. after the due date of filing the return and money was not deposited in the Capital Gain

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

gain on the property sold during the year under consideration claiming that the land sold is not a capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. 5. That during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant has claimed deduction under section 54B

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

gain on the property sold during the year under consideration claiming that the land sold is not a capital asset as defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. 5. That during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant has claimed deduction under section 54B

SMT. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected in the previous year shall, save or otherwise provided in sections 54, 54B

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains are concerned. The word "assessee" used in section 548 of the Act for fulfilling the condition and subsequently enabling the assessee to claim exemption under Section 548 of the Act must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. The provisions contained in Section 548 of the Act being socio-welfare

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

Section 54B of the Act needs to be reproduced here for a ready reference. When reproduced, it reads as under:- 54B. [ Capital gain

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA of 4 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT the Act. Assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2017 at a total income of Rs. 80,40,080/- for the year under consideration. In consequence thereof, addition of Rs. 62,39,484/- was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SMT. ABDA BAI, KOTA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital Gain, before claiming exemption under Section 54F and Section 54B, amounting to Rs. 2,02,84,034. At time