SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation\nOfficer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\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

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

disallowing a sum of Rs. 12,16,500 (interest of Rs. 9,81,495 and\ncommission of Rs. 2,31,005) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance

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

disallowing a sum of Rs. 12,16,500 (interest of Rs. 9,81,495 and\ncommission of Rs. 2,31,005) under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance

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

disallowance of Rs.\n4,29,946/- and addition of Rs. 2,63,580/- made by the Assessing Officer is\nconfirmed. Ground No. 2 and 3 are dismissed.\n4. Ground No. 4(a) and 4(b) are as under:\n\"a) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in making

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

disallowance of Rs.\n4,29,946/- and addition of Rs. 2,63,580/- made by the Assessing Officer is\nconfirmed. Ground No. 2 and 3 are dismissed.\n4. Ground No. 4(a) and 4(b) are as under:\n\"a) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in making

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition

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

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

2) of section 143or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of section 142, or (c) has concealed the particulars ofhis income or furnished inaccurate particulars ofsuch income, or (d) has concealed the particulars of the fringe benefits or furnished inaccurate particulars of such fringe benefits, he may direct that such person shall

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2. On basis of facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) - NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in disallowing the exemption us 54F amounting to Rs 34,25,398/-. Appellant prays that such exemption being duly allowable as claimed, the addition made deserves to be deleted. 3. That under the facts and circumstances

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

50C is applicable particularly when the same are not applicable as the full value of consideration was invested by the assessee in construction of house. 2 Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition made by the ld AO in respect

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

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/-.

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 of improvement cost and making investment of the entire consideration

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 regard was allowed by holding the action of ld.AO as beyond jurisdiction. Shri Prabir Das, Karimganj Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-Karimgan in ITA No. 395/Gau/2019 dated 26.06.2020 The legal issue before us is whether the AO could have made

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,18,000/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 398/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2014-15 : 1. That the orders passed

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,18,000/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 398/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2014-15 : 1. That the orders passed

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 2,18,000/- made by the AO arbitrarily. The appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo. ITA NO. 398/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2014-15 : 1. That the orders passed

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)\nJaipur.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPP7158C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 08/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER\nPER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nThis is an appeal filed

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 50C of the IT Act and made an addition on account of long term capital gain for Rs. 54,33,353/- and reduced the indexed cost from Rs. 18,23,077/- to Rs. 8,99,545/- and assessed the total income at Rs. 59,02,840/- by raising a demand of Rs. 21,58,090/-. Aggrieved by the order