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)

96[1st day of April, 97[1981]]. 98[*] means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset on or after the said date by the previous owner or the assessee, and (i) in any other case, means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations

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)

96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has earned long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee

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)

96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has earned long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee

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)

96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has earned long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee

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)

96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has earned long term capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs.15,72,409/- and not on entire value of transactions i.e. 86,31,724/-. Appellant prays that shares were purchased Online, through banking channels and were duly recorded in books of accounts, thus source of the same was explained and addition so made is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Ld.CIT(A) has further erred

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital gain was not disclosed in the original return of income although he was legally bound to do the same, similarly, no loss was claimed in original return of income against LTCG. Based on that fact ld. AO noted it a clear case of concealment of income and accordingly levied the penalty upon the assessee

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

Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub-sections of section 139". The Supreme Court, in the context of interpretation of provisions of 276CC

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

section 133 (6) of IT Act from Tehsildar (L.A.), Sanganer which reveals that aerial\ndistance of the Khasra 228/2 is 7 Km from Jaipur Municipal Corporation.\" As regards\nalternate claim for allowing deduction u/s 54B and 54F, the A.O. held that the benefit\nof exemption only allowable if same are claimed in return filed

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Section 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. iv. Judgments relied in support of the above

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Section 49(1) of the Act, the capital gains liability has to be computed by considering that the assessee held the said asset from the date it was held by the previous owner and the same analogy has also to be applied in determining the indexed cost of acquisition. iv. Judgments relied in support of the above

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Capital Gains, eligible to tax, in the hands of the assessee. 3.3. Even ld. AO, in his remand report, submitted to the ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that the property was never transferred to the assessee. In this regard, the remand report of the ld. AO, reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at Page 5-6 of his order

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

Capital Gains, eligible to tax, in the hands of the assessee. 3.3. Even ld. AO, in his remand report, submitted to the ld. CIT(A) accepted the fact that the property was never transferred to the assessee. In this regard, the remand report of the ld. AO, reproduced by the ld. CIT(A) at Page 5-6 of his order

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

capital gain. Not only that he has not verified the records related the transaction on hand with that of the agencies under the power vested upon him to cross verify the evidence filed by the assesse. Thus, now on both the side ld, AO cannot act against the assessee the he did not verify the documents and did not allow

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority