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

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. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

54D, 54E, 54EA, 54EB, 54F, 54G and 54H is chargeable to income tax under the head 'capital gains' and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. The aforesaid sections which form part of section 54 of the Act are cases where capital gain on transfer of capital asset

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the During the Appellant proceedings, the Appellant has submitted detailed reply reiterating the facts submitted before AO and claimed that the capital gain the transfer of original asset was taxable in the year, when the stock in trade is sold. However, conditions for claiming exemption u/s 54B are very clear about the time limits for making investment

SHRI NARESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the carry forward the long term capital loss of Rs. 14,76,729/- for the current year on sale of shares. 2 ITA159/JP/2019 Shri Naresh Jain vs ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur 2.2 By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2.3 We have

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)

disallowance of the index cost of improvement which relates to expenses incurred by the assessee on account of boundary wall construction. The addition so made, being completely contrary to the provisions of law and facts, deserves to be deleted in full. 5. The appellant prays for your kind indulgence to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of this

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

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 U/s 54F of the Act. The ld Pr.CIT after