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

50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 fully applies to the appellant. Appellant prays that the notice issued u/s 148 being unlawful, the assessment framed deserves to be quashed 1.3 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. Ao has further grossly erred in not following the procedure embedded by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ms GKN Driveshifts

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

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

section 50C of the IT Act 1961, and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 67,36,715 (1/8 of Rs. 5,38,93,718) against the declared sale consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/- (1/8 of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of 2 Manoj Kumar

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C supported by the case laws was filed. (c) In reply dt. 20.11.2019 (PB 25-28), the blindness certificate of brother, evidence of brokerage paid on sale of land and evidence of expenditure incurred on the agriculture land was filed. (d) In reply dt. 21.11.2019, explanation with respect to investment in house property and evidence of expenditure incurred

PRIME GOLD INFRA STEEL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 50C of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowing

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

disallowed interest expenses correctly as per provisions of law. The ground raised by the appellant is dismissed.” [ emphasis supplied ] 5.2 In addition to the above addition the ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 10,72,932/- as the assessee has violated the provisions of section 43CA of the Act as sale deed was made on less value from

SHRI DHARAMVIR SINGH ,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. S/O- Shri Inder Singh, 523, Near Ward 2(1) Gurudwara, Bhimganjmandi, Kota. Kota Jn., Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Axops 4086 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Swapnil Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Kota Dated 27/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Sole Ground Of Appeal Which Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 16,89,423/-.

Section 50C of the Act, the rates prevalent at the time of agreement i.e. 15/11/2010 could be applicable in the present case for the purpose of computing full value of consideration for such transfer. 8 ITA 35/JP/2019_ Sh. Dharamvir Singh Vs ITO 10. The A.O. has also made disallowance

SHRI DINESH NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (T& J), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him Even Though He Had All The Powers To Entertain Such Claim.

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 5,98,464/- u/s 54F of Income tax Act. Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of learned AO. 3. Learned AO and CIT (A) have erred in not following binding Circular No. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.55 of CBDT supported by plethora of judgements from

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of transfer expenses; and Rs. 7,06,080/- in terms of section 50C valuation and Rs. 60,00,000/- transfer

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Section 143(3) of the Income 2 Lal Singh Naderia vs. ITO tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 19.12.2011. In this appeal the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts in sustaining the disallowance of relief claimed by the appellant u/s 54 of the Income

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowances of Rs.7,96,530/- as per Section 50C of the Act and Rs.43,000/- as to claim deduction u/s 80C of the Act by observing

DAMODAR LAL SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Section 50C will not apply thereto. Accordingly, the AO is directed to adopt the full value of consideration as Rs. 4,00,000/- as per the sale deed. ‘’3.4 The assessee has further contended that in the Return filed in response to notice u/s 148, he had corrected the year of improvement from F.Y. 1998-99 as stated

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, ITA No. 302/JP/2017 is dismissed and ITA No

section 50C(1) of the Act and taken value of Rs. 29,32,189/- as deemed sale consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gain. 5. That the assessee had purchased another agriculture land on 27- 04- 2012 for a consideration of Rs. 18,80,400/-. 6. That the assessee had claimed deduction

TRIMURTY COLONIZERS AND BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of above directions

disallowance of Rs.2,98,890/-.” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, the ld AR submitted that during the relevant previous year, assessee company sold a piece of land situated at Sunrise City, Niwaru, Jaipur for total consideration Rs. 9,00,000/-. Since there were certain irregularities, the land was sold by the assessee company at Rs. 9,00,000/- whereas

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 50C and also by disallowing cost of acquisition of other land sold by assessee. Appeal of assessee in this

SHYAM KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), JAIPUR

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

Section 50C of the Act and took the deemed full valuation consideration as enhanced value of property for stamp purpose by Additional Commissioner (Stamp). The order of the Additional Commissioner 4 Shri Shyam Kumar Jain vs. ITO (Stamp) dated 09.10.2013 was challenged before the Rajasthan Tax Board and vide order dated 07.03.2018. The Rajasthan Tax Board set aside the order

SHARDA DEVI,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsharda Devi, 421, Lohia Padi, Alwar- 301001. Pan No.:Adkpd7161J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward- 1(4), Alwar. ..... Respondent

disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. In view of the above provisions of section 271(1)(c) alongwith explanation 1 of the Act, relevant to the matter

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,68,874/ made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged investment without considering the fact that assessee was not the owner