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

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

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. 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. NIRMALA 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

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

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.”

vii) J.P. Boder Co. v/s CBDT (SC) 223 ITR 271 (viii) CIT v/s Hero Cycles (SC) 228 ITR 463 (ix) CIT v/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (SC) 157 CTR 249 (x) C.I.T v/s Ramco International 332 ITR 306 (P&H) (xi) C.I.T v/s Bhaskar Mitter (Cal) 73 TAXMAN 437 (xii) C.I.T v/s Rajasthan Fasteners

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

Capital gains - Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Safe harbour) - Assessment year 2011- 12 - Whether amendment in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third proviso thereto and by enhancing tolerance band for variations between stated sale consideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation from 5 per cent to 10 per cent are curative in nature, and, therefore

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

2,65,99,000 \nbeing the alleged cash transaction between M/s. Millenium Build Home P. \nLtd and M/s Nevralji Estate P. Ltd.\n11. As is evident from the facts of the case narrated herein above that \ndisputes arise because the revenue collected some documents in that \nsearch and those documents were considering being the nature of \nincriminating and that

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, 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. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

capital gain computed by the Pr. CIT 2 , JAIPUR of 16,42,994/- deserves to be deleted. 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view

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.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

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

SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

vii) and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 11,53,600/-. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 2 Kesar Lal Bairwa, Jaipur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii)**\n**\nthe whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one\nor more of such activities.\"\n7. The word 'attributable used in the said section is of great importance. The\nApex Court had an occasion to consider the meaning of the word 'attributable' as\nsupposed to derive from its use in various other provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Vii) and Section 57(iv):-\nIn this regard it is submitted that the same is not taxable under both the\nsections, because it is not taxable income. The sections provide\ntaxability of the income which is not exempt. As your good self\nmentioned that the same come into force w.e.f 01/04/2017. It is\nsubmitted that the same is not applicable

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

vii) investment or deposit in any public sector company: Provided that where an investment or deposit in any public sector company has been made and such public sector company ceases to be a public sector company,— (A) such investment made in the shares of such company shall be deemed to be an investment made under this clause for a period