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

56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside 8 KM of municipal area inasmuch as such agriculture land is not covered in the definition of property as given in clause (d)of explanation to said Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

capital gain. [Para 16] In view of the above, an assessee who desires to avail benefit of section 54E, must strictly satisfy all those conditions which are provided therein. One of the conditions of the section is that the assessee is to deposit whole or any part of the net consideration in any specified assets within a period

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

Section 2(14), read with\nsection 56, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital assets (Agricultural\nland) - Assessment

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

capital gain tax is not attracted. The transaction between the closer relatives should not be seen as introducing black money or evasion of the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction is within the family and close relatives and covered by the proviso to s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act and there

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gains. Appeal was allowed by the CIT (A) and was affirmed by the Tribunal. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. (AY.2014- 15) Hon'ble Calcutta bench of ITAT in the case of Sandeep Kumar Poddar vs ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 18 (Kolkata- Trib.) has held as under: Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Income from other sources

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

section 2(14) of I.T. Act\n[mistakenly mentioned by Id. AO as ‘u/s 2(1A) of I.T. Act']. The Id.\nAO made addition of capital gain of Rs.38,56

M/S PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA HUF,C-42, KALADEEP, VAISHALI NAGAR, GOKUL PATH, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain tax is not attracted. The transaction between the closer relatives should not be seen as introducing black money or evasion of the tax. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the transaction is within the family and close relatives and covered by the proviso to s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act and there

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.

56 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) The question before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was: “When the assessee invests the entire sale consideration in the construction of a residential house, can he be denied exemption under Section 54F(4) on the ground that he did not deposit the said amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the due date prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

2,38,996/-. He claimed deduction of Rs. 14,00,000/- under section 54EC on account of investment in bonds. 7 ITA 823/JP/2019 & CO 29/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs Ravindra Mittal Thereafter, the assessee revised the return of income and offered long term capital gain of Rs. 5,23,66,528/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 13,11,857/- arising

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. VEENA GOAYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

gains derived in any manner=Provision of section 56(2)(vii)(c) would not apply and specified amount could not be assessed as income in hands of 13 ITA 75 & 76/JP/2020_ DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Goyal & 1 Anr assessee on ground of inadequate consideration—Appeal partly allowed. Held Section 56(2)(vii)(c) gets attracted whenever an individual or Hindu

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

capital gains year in which assessable – assessment year 1999- 2000 whether even in cases where pending appeal court /tribunal/ authority, before which appeal is pending permits claimant to withdraw against security or otherwise enhanced compensation (which is in dispute) same is liable to be taxed under section 45(5) in year of receipt- Held, yes - Whether additional amount under section

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

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 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

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. Swati Bajaj Judgment:\ni.\nIn Principal CIT v. Swati Bajaj [2022] 446 ITR 56 (Cal.), the Hon'ble Calcutta\nHigh Court held that when dealing with investments in penny stocks, the onus is\non the assessee to establish the genuineness of the transaction.\n30\nITA NO.704/JPR/2024\nSHRI BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR\nii.\nThe Court

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 at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that