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

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)

1) dated 29.07.2014, that the assessee has claimed amount of Rs. 3,33,40,000/- as deposited in 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

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

1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included in COA - Rs. 4,55,540/-: The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law and on the facts of the case

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

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

54B and, thereby, computing capital gains at Rs. 63,95,407. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances

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.

1) and a show cause notice dated 13.12.2022. 6. Section 54B of the Act needs to be reproduced here for a ready reference. When reproduced, it reads as under:- 54B. [ Capital gain

BHAGIRATH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

1) of sixth Proviso, section 54, section 54B or section 54D or section 54EC or section 54F or section 54G or section 54GA or section 54GB were inserted by the Finance Act, 2019 which is effective from 01.04.2020, but the impugned case on hand is related to the AY 2012-13. It indicates that the exemption u/s 54B

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

capital gain computed at Rs 1,12,93,878/-. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act, of Rs. 90,67,650/- and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 20,60,000/-. As regards the cost of acquisition, the assessee furnished copy of valuation report from registered valuer. Thus, while allowing the claim details were examined and no adverse inference

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain upon it. The assessee along with his brother had sold agricultural land during the year under consideration. The assessing officer in para 3 of assessment order has made self contrary remarks, on one hand the assessing officer has stated the assessee has furnish/reproduced the copy of sale registry of agricultural land, bank statement and purchase registry of agricultural

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gains—Held, there is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny—If proposal of Assessing Officer and approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax are examined on anvil of paragraph 3 of CBDT

SHRI ATUL KOCHAR,JAIPUR vs. PRCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains after giving necessary opportunity to the assessee. Against the said order and the findings of the ld. Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has claimed deductions u/s 54B and 54F amounting to Rs. 1,57,98,799/- which was allowed

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

54B of the 1. T. Act of Rs.13,45,700/- declared long term capital gain at NIL in the return of income filed. 7.2 Subsequently it was noted by the AO that the stamp valuation authority have adopted/assess value of the said 6 plots at Rs.19,49,552/- and therefore as per the AO in view of provision

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs.87,91,732/- against which deduction u/s 54B was claimed. Considering the same, the AO assessed the income of HUF u/s 143(3) vide order dt.07.12.2009 by accepting the declared income. Thus, when assessment has already been completed/s 143(3), then reopening the case on same issue beyond four years amounts to change of opinion which

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. Large deduction claimed under section 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA 2. Large value sale of consideration of property in ITR is less than sale consideration of property. 3. Large cash deposits in savings bank account and assessee has also transferred one or more property(ies) during the year Order passed by A.O:-AO passed the order

SYAANI LEGAL HEIR LATE NARAYAN JAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

gain on account of sale of agricultural land. 4. That my Husband Shri Narayan Jat lodged an FIR on 18.12.2014 against the 'so called' purchasers for execution of the said 'forged' sale deed dated 18.02.2010. 5. That meanwhile my Husband Shri Narayan Jat expired on 05.02.2019. Copy of Death Certificate dated 05.02.2019 is enclosed. 6. That I had 4 sons