SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

vi) in relation to a return furnished for the assessment\nyear commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2018;\n3. It is submitted that as per provisions of Proviso first and second\nto Sec. 143(1), before making any adjustment in income of the\nassessee u/s 143(1), advance intimation will be given to him to seek\nhis

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021 : Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] held that [PB : 3]: 10 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 7. Failure to adhere to the mandatory

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

VI-A under the heading “C.-\r\nDeductions in respect of certain incomes” (which includes deduction under\r\nsection 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due\r\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been\r\nintroduced w.e.f. 1-4-2021. Accordingly, the above amendment would

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gain Rs.1,14,75,791/-, Gross Total Income Rs.1,15,64,875/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs. 89,084/- Restricted to Income other than LTCG –Total Income Rs. 1,14,75,791/-, R/o Rs.1,14,75,790/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest

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)

vi) we does not knows how you valued fair market value of Rs. 55,000/- as on 01/04/1981. It is absolutely non-scientific, hypostatical and wrong calculated value and request you to please us method of valuation of Rs.55000/- looking to the above facts you are requested to please accept the FMV”. 3.2 The ld. AO noted that the contention

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1. Surprisingly,the contention/stand of the AO here is highly contradictory. If what is contended (i.e. the AO got the seized record on 03.03.2022), is taken to be legally correct, the necessary consequence/implication shall be that the assessment year 2014-15 (and AY 2015-16) shall be completely beyond its jurisdiction u/s. 153A and u/s 153C, which provides that

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)

9,725 39,343 *********** After considering impairment o27 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Submission:  Definition of "transfer" & tax provisions relating to merger under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Definition of "transfer" under the Act Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the term "transfer" is defined

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)

9,725 39,343 *********** After considering impairment o27 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Submission:  Definition of "transfer" & tax provisions relating to merger under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Definition of "transfer" under the Act Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the term "transfer" is defined

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)

9,725 39,343 *********** After considering impairment o27 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Submission:  Definition of "transfer" & tax provisions relating to merger under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') Definition of "transfer" under the Act Under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the term "transfer" is defined

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

1) amount of LTCG arisen (2) Nature of Capital Gain & (3) Availability of section 54 to the assessee subject to our final decision on the issue of entitlement of section 54 of the Act. 6. During the course of hearing, ld. counsel of the assessee filed a Paper Book (PB) and in support of his contentions filed following Rulings

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession, cannot be imported to Chapter III under which income which does not form part of total income is to be computed. [Para 13.1] Under section 11(1)(a) when income is applied for acquisition of capital asset which is treated as applied, the claim of depreciation on same income will amount to double deduction. Moreover

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 of certain amount to be bogus - Assessee

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

9 of the impugned order, it has been contended by the ld AR that merely because there was no provision for issuing a separate order of registration in 1922 Act, it would not mean that such recognition/ approval is not saved by section 297(2)(k) of the IT Act, 1961. 21. We will deal with both of these contentions