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.

Capital Gain Account Scheme is mandatory ? 1.10 ITO (IT) 3(3)(1) Vs. Akansha Ranju Pilani vide I.T.A. No. 4769/Mum/2015 (AY 2012-13) (Please see copy of the judgement at PB No_ 78 - 81) Hon’ble Mumbai tribunal (Coram: Hon’ble Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) and Hon’ble S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)held at para No. 8 of the order

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 of Rs. 13,11,857/- arising out of assessee's parting with 35% of land to the builder, as well as direct sale (as per page no. 95 to 99 of paper book filed by the assessee). Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee has entered into developer agreement and therefore assessee is engaged in real estate business

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

section 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and on flimsy grounds. 8 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI 5. The learned AO has erred in charging tax on Long Term Capital 5. The assessee craves his right to add, alter, Gain

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 2(14) of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Capital assets (Agricultural land) - Assessment\nyear 2008-09 - Assessee got his agricultural lands converted for non-agricultural purpose\nand sold said land, however, he did not offer any capital gain to tax claiming\nthat land was agricultural land - Revenue submitted that assessee's lands were within 8

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)

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

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

capital gain and added Rs.123680/- as\nunexplained expenditure. The Ld CIT (Appeal) had restricted the addition to the\nextent of Rs 123680 which was primarily assumed by Ld ITO ward 3(1) as 6% /nand amounting Rs 185530/-.\nAs stated assessee had made real transactions of sales therefore no question\narises of commission and other charges except STT and other

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

8 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) capital gain, section 139 is referred without mentioning any sub section

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

8,56,841/- on sale consideration of Rs. 85,99,470/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 74,25,181/-. During the course of examination of assessment record, it is found that the assessee sold agricultural land of Rs. 50,00,000/- and work out long-term capital gain of Rs. 77,42,269/- taking into consideration

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)

gains of business or profession, or Income from other sources and the expression improvement shall be construed accordingly 1(2) 2[For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, cost of acquisition, (b) in relation to any other capital asset. ] (i) where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 41st day of April 5[1981]], means

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)

8 As regards the purchase consideration when the assessee has shown the share application money paid through his bank account and the AO has not brought on record any material to show that apart from the share application money paid through bank account the assessee has brought his own unaccounted money back as long term capital gain. The facts

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)

8 KM of municipal limit of Jaipur and therefore not a capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain

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)

8 KM of municipal limit of Jaipur and therefore not a capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain

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)

8 KM of municipal limit of Jaipur and therefore not a capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain

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)

8 KM of municipal limit of Jaipur and therefore not a capital asset within meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain

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

Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 and 9] [Matter remanded] Shilpaben Nileshbhai Gami vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 595 (Gujarat High Court)[19-11-2024] Section 68, read with section 45 and 254, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit(Condonation of delay) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order upholding capital gain

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

8 As regards the purchase consideration when the assessee has shown the share application money paid through his bank account and the AO has not brought on record any material to show that apart from the share application money paid through bank account the assessee has brought his own unaccounted money back as long term capital gain. SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL