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)

disallowed as per the provisions of section 54B of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C

ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR vs. CHINRJI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

19. As a result, this appeal filed by the department deserves to be

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

section…….” In view of the facts and the circumstances as stated above, the appellant is eligible for deduction u/s 54B, the disallowance

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 54B is prior to necessary approval communicated to AO and therefore, in absence of communication in writing to AO about approval, assumption of jurisdiction by AO is invalid—Consequently, addition made by AO by denying deduction u/s 54B is not sustainable and same is deleted—Assessee appeal allowed. Here the case of 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

disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F of the Act amounting to Rs. 29,16,856/- and deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act amounting to Rs. 32,76,000/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowances, the assessee would be given a fair opportunity to explain his position on the proposed additions/disallowances in accordance with the principal of natural justice. f) Instruction no. 5/2016 dated 14th July, 2016:Vide this instruction CBDT further clarified that general scope of enquiry in scrutiny proceedings should be restricted to the relevant parameters which formed the basis for selecting

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

disallowed the balance claim of Rs. 80,22,354/- (Difference of total consideration of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- minus en-cashed amount of Rs. 28,00,000/-). The appellant's main argument is that she had issued cheques on the date of agreement itself i.e. 01/03/2016; the builder mentions that he was given post-dated cheques. The cheques were

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

section 54B of the I. T. Act was restricted to the Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.13,45,700/- though the agricultural land purchased was of the value of Rs.14,77,170/-. The appellant therefore alleged that differential amount of Rs.1,31,470/- (14,77,170-13,45,700) is the amount of deduction which was not claimed

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

54B and, thereby, computing capital gains at Rs. 63,95,407. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances

KALYAN MAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act. 3. Since the assessee has not been granted any relief by Learned CIT(A), he is before this Appellate Tribunal. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. As per assessment order dated 27.12.2017, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s 54B of the Act, which was claimed in respect

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA of 4 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT the Act. Assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 26/12/2017 at a total income of Rs. 80,40,080/- for the year under consideration. In consequence thereof, addition of Rs. 62,39,484/- was made