SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

section 139 of the Act. According to ld. AR of the assessee, the investment was made before of 31.03.2009 i.e. the time limit 17 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) provided u/s 139(4), the claim of the assessee u/s 54F was rightly allowed by the Id. CIT(A)”. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur also

JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 54 of the Act, the appellant has either to purchase or construct a residential house property within two or three years, as the case may be, from the date of sale of the subjected property sold by the appellant on 29.09.2010. However, in the instant case under consideration, the appellant has not constructed any property even almost after

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

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

property and if such investment is made within the period stipulated therein, than section 54F(4) is not at all attracted. We may clarify here that provisions of section 54(2) are almost identically worded as in invested the amount for the purchase/ construction of the house within the stipulated period as also observed above while deciding the first issue

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

property, and not guided by the Income tax laws. The parties to a transaction are therefore, well within their rights to enter into a subsequent conveyance deed even when the same transaction has been held to be in nature of transfer under the provisions of section 2(47) of the Act and there is nothing in the income

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

195 Taxman 117 the Bombay High Court has held that "Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147 An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override or render the substance or core nugatory, Section

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of 18 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of 18 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of 18 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

195 taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26-05-2010] x x x x CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) x x x x In ManharlalKasturchand

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was 10 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in instalments and that cost was claimed with indexation

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

SH. SHASHANK PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

property, capital gain and income from other sources. Return was filed by the assessee on 28.12.2016 declaring total income of Rs.54,35,250/- (PB 1-4). 2. In the return assessee declared under the head income from other sources, saving bank interest, other interest and other income of Rs.25,54,381/- against which it claimed deduction of interest paid