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)

71 of the Act, where there is no income under the head capital gain, set off against his income is not allowed. Here, the capital gain was calculated by the AO to the tune of Rs.57,50,287/-. Moreover, the return of income was filed after the due date invoking the provisions of section

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

section 71 which states that 71 (2) Where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than "Capital gains

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)

71,725/- earned from sale of these shares was declared in the return of income and as shares were of listed public limited company, sold through recognized stock exchange after holding for a period of more than one year and due STT [Securities Transaction Tax] was paid, long term capital gain was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of Income

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

71,346 + Rs. 2,20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section

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

71,346 + Rs. 2,20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section

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

71,346 + Rs. 2,20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section

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

71,346 + Rs. 2,20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section

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

71,346 + Rs. 2,20,40,962/-) in financial year 2010-11 relevant to assessment year 2011-12, which assessee declared as Long Term Capital Gain exempt under section

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

71,80,672\n(Capital\nGain)\nmultiplied\nby\n27,50,000\n(Amount\ninvested\nor\ntransaction\nvalue) divided\nby 76,38,967\n(Net\nConsideration)\n=7180672*27500\n00/7638967\n|Invested\namount only\n|4,430,672\n|23,25,295\n(Capital\nGain)\nmultiplied\nby\n27,50,000\n(Amount\ninvested\nor\ntransaction\nvalue) divided

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 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)

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that it would be necessary to examine relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund – Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to 14 Nirmal Kumar

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

71,76,181/- be added u/s 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of long term capital gains. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee submitted a detailed reply which is also part of the order of the assessment. The ld. AO stated that the reply

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

71,76,181/- be added u/s 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of long term capital gains. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee submitted a detailed reply which is also part of the order of the assessment. The ld. AO stated that the reply

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

71,76,181/- be added u/s 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of long term capital gains. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee submitted a detailed reply which is also part of the order of the assessment. The ld. AO stated that the reply

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

71,76,181/- be added u/s 69C of the Act being unexplained expenditure incurred by way of commission paid to arrange bogus entry of long term capital gains. In response to the above show cause notice, the assessee submitted a detailed reply which is also part of the order of the assessment. The ld. AO stated that the reply