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, 54D

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, 54D

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, 54D

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

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 U/s 54F of the Act. The ld Pr.CIT after

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 Gains i.e. LTCG of Rs.4,44,60,476 LTCG declared by the assessee was Rs.0 as against that assessed by the Assessing 4 Officer at Rs.4,44,60,476, including Rs.4,30,51,976 on account of index cost of acquisition and Rs. 14,08,500 by making a disallowance of the index cost of improvement which relates

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 17.12.2019. 2. The assessee has assailed following ground in this appeal:- 2 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed

AHMED ALI KHAN,TONK vs. ITO, TONK

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

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

section 54D as under :- “ Capital gain on compulsory acquisition of lands and buildings not to be charged in certain cases

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/-

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 can be claimed without filling of return of income

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 54D and 54F and assessed income is remained same in that circumstance. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that this excess deduction is neither any income nor the loss or like unabsorbed depreciation carried forward to subsequent year and merely excess investment arising out of capital gain

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)

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 u/s 154 and made addition on the issue