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

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: [Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) The assessee,— (i) owns64 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year" The assessee objected to such re-opening as it was hit by the first proviso to sec 147, whereby an assessment / re-assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the act is sought to be re-opened after lapse of four years

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 90(1)(a)(i) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case . 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.” In the above decision, one of the properties is situated in Australia and the Hon’ble ITAT held that income from house property offered in the income tax return in Australia cannot be taxed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain 15,72,409/- 58-62 Offered in IDS At this juncture, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, wherein it has been held as under: “As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention

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 10(38)) o Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL): " Sale: Rs. 48,87,600/- " Purchase: Rs. 48,90,900/- " Loss: Rs. 3,300/- Thus, the net capital gain

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 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 1.23The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted, confirmed the action of the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on human probabilities, however again no defect whatsoever was pointed out in the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and these documentary evidences were not rebutted

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

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n1.23 The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted,\nconfirmed the action of the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on\nhuman probabilities, however again no defect whatsoever was pointed out in the\ndocumentary evidences furnished by assessee and these documentary evidences\nwere not rebutted

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 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n1.23The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted, confirmed the action\nof the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on human probabilities, however again\nno defect whatsoever was pointed out in the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and\nthese documentary evidences were not rebutted

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain, whereas assessee had declared the long term capital loss of Rs. 1,79,799/- on\naccount of sale of plots. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and\nagainst the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of\nRs. 7,59,696/-and allowing the declared loss

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain, whereas assessee had declared the long term capital loss of Rs. 1,79,799/-\non account of sale of plots. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and\nagainst the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of\nRs. 7,59,696/-and allowing the declared loss

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

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)

capital gain of Rs. 66,90,331. The said company CSL is a public limited company where public are substantially interested. Its shares are listed in the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange. The said company is regularly filing statutory return as required under Companies Act to the RoC, Ahmedabad. If really the AO doubted the genuineness of transaction, he ought to have

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 54 of the Act." The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Office vs. Rajkumar Parashar (2018) 195 TTJ (Jp) 212(DPB 10-17) it was held as: “Where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax\nAct (here in after \"Act\"), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer.\n2\nITA No. 254 to 257/JPR/2024\nSh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT\nSince the issue involved in these four appeals of the\nassessee's are almost identical therefore, were heard together with\nthe agreement the parties and are being disposed

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)

90,625). This shows that the said land was sold by the assessee in favour of M/s S.G. Enterprises through agreement to sales. Therefore, capital gain liability arises on the assessee on the year of executing agreement to sale which is F.Y. 2011-12 and F.Y. 2013-14. The seller has also shown the transactions in his ITR filed

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2. Since the issue involved in these four appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical therefore, were heard together with the agreement the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 153 r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. Sh. Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 2. Since the issue involved in these four appeals of the assessee’s are almost identical therefore, were heard together with the agreement the parties and are being disposed off by this consolidated order

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

capital gains earned on said sale but\nassessee had purchased property and not sold property, since AO missed most\ncrucial part of transaction that it was a purchase and not a sale transaction and\nimpugned order under section 148A(b) did not align with notice issued under\nsection 148A(b), impugned order and consequential notice were to be set aside