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.

9 Indira Giri vs. ITO 1. 032005 Central Bank of Booking 02/03/2016 2800000/- India, Dadabari Amount Branch, Kota 2. 032007 -do- 29/03/2016 140000/- Service Tax/VAT 3. - TDS deposited 31/03/2016 28000/- @ 1% u/s 194IA Builder assured the possession of the flat within 18 months and collected the balance amount of Rs. 8022354/- by way of post-dated/undated cheques, while executing

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

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

vii)(b) are not applicable in the present case but the Learned AO\nadded difference between consideration as per stamp value authority and sale\nconsideration disclosed by Humble Appellant to income of Humble Appellant.\nii.\niii.\nThat the Humble appellant has sold out an Agriculture Land Khasra No 889 Area 9\nBigha 9 Bishwa situated at Village Badraitha Tehsil Bari

SMT. NIRMALA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside 8 KM of municipal area inasmuch as such agriculture land is not covered in the definition of property as given in clause (d)of explanation to said Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant

SHRI YOGESH MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside 8 KM of municipal area inasmuch as such agriculture land is not covered in the definition of property as given in clause (d)of explanation to said Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant

SMT. KAVITA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside 8 KM of municipal area inasmuch as such agriculture land is not covered in the definition of property as given in clause (d)of explanation to said Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] (1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to be mandatory, the words may direct in sub section 2 there of intended to directory'. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory levy of penalty is discretionary. It is trite position of law that discretion is vested and authority has to be exercised in a reasonable

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein