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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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)

capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also

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. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee." 7.2 CIT vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

64,733/- mentioned at page-23 & 24 are reproduced as under:-\n'Page. 23. It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the AO\nfor proving a fact or circumstances in the income tax proceedings. The questions raised\nabout the tax liability by the AO are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing

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)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64

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)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64

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)

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

64,890/- paid\nNA\nNA\nNA\n03\n29.01.2013 Registered sale deed dated\n29.01.2013 jointly executed by the\nassessee whereby immovable\nproperty was sold\nNA\nNO\nProduced\n&\nExplained\n04\n07.06.2013 Notarized agreement to sale for\nPallacia entered by the assessee and\nhis wife with the Builder\nNA\nYES\nYES\n05\n31.08.2015 Return of Income for A.Y. 2015-16\nfiled

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital nature, is\npurely on estimate basis, without bringing on record any cogent and corroborative\nmaterial.\nTherefore, in view of above,the said disallowance of business loss of Rs. 4,29,946 and treating\nthe same as STCG, deserves to be deleted.\nGROUND NO. 4(a)& 4(b):\nADDITION OF RS. 7,59,696 AS SHORT TERM\nCAPITAL GAIN

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital nature, is\npurely on estimate basis, without bringing on record any cogent and corroborative\nmaterial.\nTherefore, in view of above,the said disallowance of business loss of Rs. 4,29,946 and treating\nthe same as STCG, deserves to be deleted.\nGROUND NO. 4(a)& 4(b):\nADDITION OF RS. 7,59,696 AS SHORT TERM\nCAPITAL GAIN

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 Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub-sections of section 139". The Supreme Court, in the context of interpretation of provisions of 276CC

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

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable.\nGround No. 13\nAs per law, if the current year's loss of Rs.391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it\nwould be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs\n1,64

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

section 47(vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable.\nGround No. 13\nAs per law, if the current year's loss of Rs.391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it\nwould be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs\n1,64

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

64,24,302/- after considering statutory deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act) and a demand of Rs.54,03,271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under the Act. 3 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust