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 gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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 gain Rs. 2,38,996/-. He claimed deduction of Rs. 14,00,000/- under section 54EC on account of investment in bonds. 7

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)

7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 5 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the prayed that the lower authorities are not justified in working out the capital gain at Rs.17,24,767/- and thus the same deserves to be deleted summarily. The written submissions as advanced

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 50C of the Act was correct.\n4. 7. In view of the facts narrated above, it is noted that the appellant sold an\nimmovable property and failed to offer to tax the capital gain

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

section 68 of the IT act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of\nshares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs.1,51,869/- being the\ndeemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the\nmain issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable”.\n4. Shri Vivek Agarwal vs. ITO (2017) 292/JP/2017 (ITAT Jaipur) Order

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

capital gain which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gains invoking provisions of section 50C and thereafter negating it and letting it to go untaxed, by allowing the assessee to claim exemption u/s 54F based on pre-designed artificial lower value of sale reported by them. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.5 Ground No. 5:- This ground of appeal being consequential

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the addition of Rs. 57,50,287/ under the head of capital gain

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

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

7 of notice is regarding commission paid to broker@ 6% in cash in lieu of bogus entry of long term capital gain shown artificial trading in penny stock bogus company while the assessee is not involved in such Scam the copy of statement provide me proved that he had received brokerage/ commission @ .050% to 1% which is normal in market

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act by treating the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. The addition of Rs. 1,51,869/- being the deemed commission for taking the accommodation entry, is consequential to the main issue. Hence, the same is also not sustainable.” We are of the view that the present appeal does

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from sale of 10,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 3,00,000 shares of face value of Rs. 1/- each of Splash Media & Infra Ltd. The assessee acquired the said 10,000 shares on 23.04.2009 on on-line transaction in recognized

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from sale of 10,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 3,00,000 shares of face value of Rs. 1/- each of Splash Media & Infra Ltd. The assessee acquired the said 10,000 shares on 23.04.2009 on on-line transaction in recognized

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from sale of 10,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 3,00,000 shares of face value of Rs. 1/- each of Splash Media & Infra Ltd. The assessee acquired the said 10,000 shares on 23.04.2009 on on-line transaction in recognized

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from sale of 10,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 3,00,000 shares of face value of Rs. 1/- each of Splash Media & Infra Ltd. The assessee acquired the said 10,000 shares on 23.04.2009 on on-line transaction in recognized

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from sale of 10,000 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 3,00,000 shares of face value of Rs. 1/- each of Splash Media & Infra Ltd. The assessee acquired the said 10,000 shares on 23.04.2009 on on-line transaction in recognized

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

7. Back ground of the Investee company, i.e. M/s Twenty First Century India Ltd.The main source of income of the assessee is income from rent and interest under the head income from house property and income from other sources respectively.During the year, the assessee had shown an exempt income under the head capital gain (STT) u/s. 10(38) amounting

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