SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

8) & by giving\ndirections to the ld. AO\nfor enhancing the income\nof the assessee by Rs.\n1,20,10,610/- u/s 69 of\nthe Act towards\nconsideration paid by the\nassessee on account of\npurchase of residential\nflat.\nThe assessee craves his\nrights to add, amend or\nalter any of the grounds\non or before the hearing\n6.\nBrief

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 2(14) clause (iii) states that an agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit is not to be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, as the agricultural land under consideration is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit, it is not a capital asset u/s 2(14)(iii) and consequently any 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

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

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

capital gain. 2.11 Without prejudice to above, it was submitted by the ld AR during the course of hearing that even if it is held that assessee has converted 8 Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar his land into stock in trade, its taxability would be governed by section

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

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

8 The mode of computation and deductions forth in s. 48 provide the principle basis for quantifying the income chargeable under the head “capital gain”. The 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

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

8. A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a case reported as CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan : [2006] 286 ITR 274, held that only Section 139 of the Act is mentioned in Section 54(2) of the Act in the context that the unutilized portion of the capital gain

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

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

8 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR managed all documents as legally required and managed the market price of shares astronomical proportions with in stipulated period of one year. The SEBI has also passed order for suspending trading by the document of such 26 scrips out of these penny stock companies. But by the documents

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8,85,82,260/- including long term capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land and building. The assessee sold agricultural land along with construction on it for a consideration of Rs. 9,90,00,000/- vide sale deed dated 21.08.2016. The assessee has computed the capital gain after claiming deduction on account of purchase of land and construction

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

gain realized from capital asset should have been invested either in purchase of residential house or in constructing the residential house. If it is established that the consideration was received on alienation property has been invested for purchase of residential house, the assessee would be entitled to benefit of section 54F of the Act 8