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.

capital gain account scheme before due date of filing of return under section 139(1) - Whether booking of flat with a builder was a case of construction and not purchase of residential flat and, therefore, time period applicable would be 3 years, which would expire on 6

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

Capital 5. The assessee craves his right to add, alter, Gain @ 30% in place of 20% in the amend or delete any grounds of appeal at the time of computation form annexed to the hearing or earlier. assessment order and its consequent impact on surcharge and interest under section 234B & 234C. 6

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

Capital Gains. The "specified agreement' referred to in section 45(5A) is equivalent to the Development Agreement in the present appeal. The specified agreement is defined as under in the explanation (ii) to section 45(5A), which reads as under: "(ii) "specified agreement" means a registered agreement in which person owning land or building or both, agrees to allow another

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)

Capital Gain at Rs.3,67,682/-(as per enclosed Computation Sheet) as against Rs.2,67,280/- (declared in the Return originally filed on 30.4.2021) after claiming Indexed Cost of Plot at Rs.2,06,624/-, Development Cost on construction of Boundary Wall of Rs. 5,35,799/-, 6 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR Indexed Cost of MittiBharai

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 54B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Capital asset\n(Agricultural land) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee sold agricultural land during\nyear and utilized total sale consideration for purchasing new agricultural land during year\nWhether since on going through Notification No. S O 9447 (File No. 164/3/97 - ITA. I),\ndated 6

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

gain of ₹27,87,561/-was added to the assessee's\nincome from other sources and taxed at 30% under Section 115BBE.\nii.\niii. Additionally, it was determined that an 6% commission (₹1,85,530/-\ncalculated at a reasonable 6% rate on the sale) is to be treated as\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C.\niv. Separate penalty proceedings under Section

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 6

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

capital gains conversion of investment, into stock in trade but postpones the charge of tax to the time, such stock in trade is sold or transferred. Once converted into stock in trade, the asset will continue to be treated as stock in trade, as mentioned in the section itself. Application of provisions of Section 45(2) will not reconvert

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

capital gains conversion of investment, into stock in trade but postpones the charge of tax to the time, such stock in trade is sold or transferred. Once converted into stock in trade, the asset will continue to be treated as stock in trade, as mentioned in the section itself. Application of provisions of Section 45(2) will not reconvert

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 55(3) prescribes the cost to be equal to the market value on the date of acquisition. Hence, the capital gain is not excluded even on the plea that value of the asset in respect of which capital gain is to be charged was incapable of being ascertained. The ld. DR has also relied upon the subsequent decision

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 5,78,571/- made by ld.AO arbitrarily and accordingly treating it as a long term capital gain

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6 Lal Chand Meena 45, not invested Provisions of section 54, 54F, etc. follow the charging section 45, and that the charging section 45 does not follow the exemption provisions. Merely because the assessee did not invest the difference between the notional sale consideration u/s 50C and sale consideration shown by the assessee, the charging of capital gains

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)

6,86,882/- as per certified Valuer. "Further as per Section 55. (1) for the purposes of 93[section 48 and 49), 951(b) cost of any improvement, (2) in relation to any other capital asset,] (i) where the capital asset became the property of the previous owner of the assessee before the 96[1st day of April

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

6. From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in Section 54(2) in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gain

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

6% of the amount of sale proceeds of bogus share transaction and the assessee had not offered any explanation about the source of the same. Thus the 16 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR AO made two additions namely Rs.23,23,696/- u/s 68 and Rs. 1,45,421/- u/s 69C of the Act respectively

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

6) and section 48 of the Act. Therefore, to sum up section 48, read with section 50 provides for computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital gains

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 70 and 74 - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]’’ 2.6 In view of the above discussions, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the AO to compute the capital gain from sale of commercial property by not doing intra-head adjustment for the loss suffered from sale of shares and allow to carry forward

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares are genuine. Even otherwise the holding of the shares by the assessee at the time of allotment subsequent to the amalgamation/ merger is not in doubt, therefore, the transaction cannot be held