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

50C(2). However, this request was not accepted by the AO, nor was it considered by the CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings. In our considered view, once a specific request is made by the assessee, it is incumbent upon the AO to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice

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

METAL EXTRUSION INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.163/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke M/S. Metal Extrusion India Ltd. The Addl. Cit Vs. 36A, Suraj Nagar East, Civil Lines Circle – 1 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm 3410 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

2) Act 2004' 8. Their Lordships were pleased to hold that this reasoning and rationale of this decision "merits acceptance". The same principle, when applied in the present context, leads to the conclusion that the present amendment, being an amendment to remove an apparent incongruity which resulted in undue hardships to the taxpayers, should be treated as retrospective in effect

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

50C(2) of the Act comes into play only when the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property. However, in the case of the appellant, no such claim was made before the AO. The provision of section 43CA of the Act specifically deals

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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)(1) Mumbai. In this case the court has held that the assessee could claim exemption only in relation to the investment made in the specified bond and not qua the entire capital gain computed as per section 50C and thus, on this aspect he said the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provision of section

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned- (a) May make an amendment under sub section (1) of it own motion, and (b) Shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee or by the deductor or by the collector and where the authority concerned

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

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. 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