INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARWAN LAL MEENA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Is A Civil Liability.

54B and 54F which were disallowed by the AO. Consequently, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings in respect of the addition of capital gain due to disallowance of claim of deduction under section

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the claim of the appellant-assessee and upheld the findings of the CIT(A) observing that no deduction under Section 54B

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 45 r.w.s. 48 by invoking the rule that there cannot be any tax on notional receipt.” In view of the facts as above and judicial decision the appellant has clearly not fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of 54B and the 8 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO deduction disallowed

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

disallowed Rs. 9,01,322/- for the purpose of section 54B of the Act. ITA 302 & 303/JP/2017 5 Birendra Singh

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SMT. ABDA BAI, KOTA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F without appreciating the facts discussed by the AO. AO in the assessment order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 2,32,310/- made by AO on account of commission on accommodation of entry without appreciating the facts discussed

SMT. MANJU KAUSHIK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1419/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Smt. Manju Kaushik The Dcit Vs. C-30, Bhagwan Das Road Range – 7 C-Scheme, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Adhpk 9678 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri P.P. Meena, Dcit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/11/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order

disallow the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. The AO has given the details of approval accorded by the Pr.CIT in the assessment order and also referred the letter dated 24-11-2016. There is no dispute that scope of enquiry in case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS is only to the extent of the issue

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

Disallowance of Deduction u/s 54B-Rs.90,67,650/-: The Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not allowing the deduction u/s 54B for Rs.90,67,650/-, It is emphasized that the appellant has made actual investments in the purchase of agricultural land, supported by evidence. There is no valid reason

SHRI MATHUR LAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance in respect of the agricultural land purchased on 16/5/2012. However, the assessee received the consideration in respect of the land sold at the time of the agreement dated 29/12/2011 thus, the ld AR has submitted that the said consideration to the extent of Rs. 70.00 lacs received at the time of first agreement dated 29/12/2011 was invested in purchase

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

VIVEK JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

section 54B, it was held that where the investment is made in the name of the wife, the assessee shall be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 10. In the said case, the assessee has sold agricultural land and purchased another agricultural land in the name of his wife and claimed deduction u/s 54B

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 17.12.2019. 2. The assessee has assailed following ground in this appeal:- 2 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed

RADU RAM JAT HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

54B deserved to be allowed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the disallowance of the deduction of 21,06,004/- u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by Ld. AO without properly appreciating the facts of the case therefore deduction claimed u/s 54F deserves

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

SHRI UMESH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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

section 54B, it was held that where the investment is made in the name of the wife, the assessee shall be eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 10. In the said case, the assessee has sold agricultural land and purchased another agricultural land in the name of his wife and claimed deduction u/s 54B

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

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

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