GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. Sections 54EA, 54EB and 54EC also provide deduction from long- term capital gain if the sale proceeds/long-term capital gain is invested in specified assets within a period of 6 months from the date of transfer. It is not possible for an assessee to make the required investment under the aforesaid sections at the point of conversion of capital asset

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

4 Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar 2.5 The AO following this order for AY 2010-11, held that 5 plots sold during the year is an adventure in the nature of trade and thereby assessed the surplus of Rs. 80,45,182/- as business income as against Rs. 52,73,855/- declared by the assessee as long term capital

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital gains” and Income from other sources”], or a company the principal business of which is the business of [trading in shares or] banking or the granting of loans and advances consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business

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

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

capital gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Malti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

73 of paper book) " Copy of Balance Sheet of Assessment Year 2011-12. (Page No. 74 of paper book) " Copy of Capital Account of Assessment Year 2011-12. (Page No. 75 of paper book) " Copy of Assessment Order dated 07.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kota (Raj.) for the Assessment Year

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished her return of income on 02.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 9,69,30,410/- which includes the income of Rs. 9,12,66,771/- admitted during search and already declared in the return filed u/s 139(1). The assessment was completed under section

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

4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus, except the material disclosing

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

4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus, except the material disclosing

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

4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus, except the material disclosing

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

4) and, therefore, it was surrendered and offered to tax by Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his family members in the year of search. The AO himself has not made any addition in the hand of the assessee on account of long term capital gain which was found during the course of search and seizure. Thus, except the material disclosing