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

section 10(38) :-\n\"Long-term capital gain arising on transfer of equity share or units of equity\noriented mutual fund or units of business trust is not chargeable to tax in the\nhands of any person, if following conditions are satisfied:\nThe transaction i.e. the transaction of sale of equity shares or units of an equity\noriented mutual fund

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

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed\nincome of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High\ncourts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases\n(CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP filed by the Revenue against

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

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)

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

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)

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

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)

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

84,800/- which is not pertained to the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. This transaction is not matching with any transaction made by the assessee. The Learned AO did not mention anything that how this transaction pertains to the assessee. The assessee has one transaction for sale of LancoInfratech shares which

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

84,97,570/- (being 70% of Rs.2,64,24,302/- after considering statutory deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act) and a demand of Rs.54,03,271/- was created. Against this intimation, assessee filed an application u/s 154 and in this proceedings, assessee filed a detailed reply dated 28.08.2013 explaining how its income is exempt from tax under

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

84 penny stock companies whose shares were manipulated or exploited to book either long term capital gain which is exempt from tax or short term capital loss for set off with other nature of income so as to reduce the tax liability.\nThe stock is held for 12 months in which time price is artificially raised to a significant level

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income\nshall be chargeable to income tax under the said head.\n31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction\nof the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital\nborrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income\nshall be chargeable to income tax under the said head.\n31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction\nof the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital\nborrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

84,078/-). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the fair market value of the property as on 1.4.1981 at Rs. 1,54,285/- as declared by the assessee, for computing the Long Term Capital Gain. 4. In the facts and circumstances

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

84,911/-. Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F & 54EC of the IT Act, 1961 respectively at Rs. 79,50,021/- and Rs,50,00,000/- by making investment of Rs. 97,82,780/- in house property and Rs. 50,00,000/- in specified bonds i.e. REC & NHAI bonds and taxable long term capital gain has been shown

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain. The total Capital Loss of Rs.\n38,58,099/- which was set of to the extent of Rs. 27,90,552/- and balance\namount of Rs. 10,67,547/- was carried forward to next year as Capital\nLoss. It is seen from the details filed that the assessee made an agreement\non 13.04.2007 for purchase of unit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). The Id. AO has discussed the issue of LTCG particularly in para 2 (PB 120). The AO, who finally passed the order dt.31.07.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act (PB 119-121) by making additions / disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

84,945/-, ncluding stamp duty. 8. During scrutiny proceedings, the assessee claimed to have deposited capital gain tax of a sum of Rs. 1,10,75,389/- earlier not deposited by him in capital gains scheme account before due date of furnishing the return of income. 9. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that as per 2nd para

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 148A(b), impugned order and\nconsequential notice were to be set aside.\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the alleged property in question for the\nreassessment was sold by the appellant and not purchased by the appellant.\nTherefore, the ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.\n6. In the result, the appeal is Allowed.\"\n5. Feeling

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building iii. Outward Foreign Remittance iv. Depreciation Claim v. Sales Turnover Mismatch vi. Other