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.

73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee has failed to deposit the unused amount in the CGAS. Appellant is making submissions on the various grounds raised before your honors. GROUND

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

73,855/- declared by the assessee as long term capital gain. 2.6 The Ld. CIT(A) without following the order of his predecessor CIT(A), after quoting the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of G. Venkatas Swami Naidu vs. CIT 35 ITR 594, held that the principle laid down in the said case is applicable

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

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

section 45(3) of the Act as capital contribution to the firm, then the same capital assets cannot be transferred subsequently by way of any other mode and therefore, the transfer of land as capital contribution is not genuine more particularly ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur when the firm existed only on papers

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

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

73,77,806/- @Rs. 501.75 to 503.50). After examination of the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account of Cressenda Solution and other relevant facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal concluded as under: ‘’11. The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation fairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entry

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 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 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 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

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

capital gains which are tax exempted. In the instant case the shares were acquired by the assessee of a paper company and then that merged into a listed entity and the most interesting part is that the assessee got 38 shares of a listed company against each share of a non- listed company and then all the beneficiaries had exited

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital account along with notes of accounts as on 7-10 2. 31.03.2013 Copy of notice u/s 148A(b) dated 31.05.2022 11-14 3. Copy of reply to Show Cause notice u/s 148A(b) dated 15.06.2022 15-25 4. Copy of order dated 21.07.2022 issued under section 148A(d) of Income Tax 26-37 5. Act, 1961 Copy of notice

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

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

section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 as claimed in ITR. 5.4. It is further submitted that when there is no allegation by Ld. A.O. that assessee ever approached any broker or entry operator for any bogus entry for long term capital gain or he has provided any entry to the assessee then, the Ld. A.O. is not justified

WEALTHY SKY DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 73 which reads as follows:- “Where any part of the business of a company [other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads “Interest on securities”, Income from house property”, “ Capital gains

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)

73,206/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society Department

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)

73,206/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society Department