SHRI YOGESH MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SMT. KAVITA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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)

section 55(2) the assessee has option to take either cost or fair market value; (ii) assessee has taken fair market value as cost of acquisition. It is a measure of inflation that finds application in tax law, when computing long term capital gains

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)

55,905 by disallowing the above expenses of the development cost is factually and legally incorrect and the same deserves to be deleted summarily, (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has factually and legally erred in not appreciating the honest and bona-fide reasons as explained at page no.16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 45 ITA No. 264 to 267/JP/2022 & CO No.13 to 16/JP/2022 DCIT vs. M/s Rigid Conductors (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. Ground No. 1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that

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

55 of the IT Act. Similarly, section 11(1A) of the IT Act provides the exemption and this exemption is only for the purpose of application of the net consideration for acquiring the new capital asset being the property held under Trust. Thus the provisions of section 50C become irrelevant or inapplicable once the actual consideration/net consideration received

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain or loss would be payable by the shareholders of the Company. 3. The CFCL holds majority equity in CVL and became direct subsidiary. Therefore, it may be inferred that assessee Company has planned for tax avoidance by merging its two subsidiaries. Third party is not involved in these transactions. Assessee Company was having share holding of 72.27% in CFCL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain or loss would be payable by the shareholders of the Company. 3. The CFCL holds majority equity in CVL and became direct subsidiary. Therefore, it may be inferred that assessee Company has planned for tax avoidance by merging its two subsidiaries. Third party is not involved in these transactions. Assessee Company was having share holding of 72.27% in CFCL

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain or loss would be payable by the shareholders of the Company. 3. The CFCL holds majority equity in CVL and became direct subsidiary. Therefore, it may be inferred that assessee Company has planned for tax avoidance by merging its two subsidiaries. Third party is not involved in these transactions. Assessee Company was having share holding of 72.27% in CFCL

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

Capital Gain by not allowing the registry charges of Rs. 4,55,540/-(while allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act for purchase of agriculture land of Rs. 70,00,000/-). 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n\n4.\nThe appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year