M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Housing V. ITO (ITA No. 5188/Del/2019.  DCIT Vs. Bsant Bansal (ITA No. 610/JP/2012.  Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta vs. ACIT 141 taxmann.com 369 ( Mumbai- Trib.)( 2022)  Vikram Krishna vs. PCIT 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC) (2020)  PCIT vs. Glandder Ceramics Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon

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.”

47 agglomeration, but it is not a SOT 17 (Chennai) municipality. Agricultural lands falling within said town panchayat would not fall within municipality, and hence is not a capital asset as per the definition under section 2(14)(iii). 5 Income Tax Officer vs. Land situate in a gram panchayat is not Uppala Bhatkavatsala in a municipality with the meaning

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that in the case of assessee

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder..” Even otherwise, after having submitted even on merits, ld. DR cannot raise issues before the Hon’ble Bench in order to rake up additional issues to hold the order of ld. AO erroneous.” 16. In addition to the above counter reply

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43[***], being buildings or 44lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house44, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, 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. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

property to be used or applied directly for the benefit of a persons referred to U/s 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, nothing contained in Section 11 and 12 shall operate so as to exclude the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the activities of the assessee

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

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,071/- out of which interest earned on the deposits in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/-. The balance interest received by the assessee is from the deposits made with cooperative banks except the small amount of Rs. 3,221/- as interest on mollasses fund. After reducing the interest paid on FDR loans from Bundi Central Co-operative

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

47,071/- out of which interest earned on the deposits in saving bank with SBBJ of Rs. 34,779/-. The balance interest received by the assessee is from the deposits made with cooperative banks except the small amount of Rs. 3,221/- as interest on mollasses fund. After reducing the interest paid on FDR loans from Bundi Central Co-operative

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

House, Vs. Ward 7(3) Sector-32, Jaipur. Gurgaon. (Haryana) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AACCH 7688 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Dilip Shivpuri, Advocate & Shri Utkarsh Shara, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property is\nextinguished by execution of an agreement to sell, the capital asset can be\ndeemed to have been transferred. Relevant portion of Section 2(47), defining the\nword \"transfer\" is as under:\n'2(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes,-\n(ii) XXXX XXXX\n(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or......' 21.\nHon

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

Section 53A of transfer of property Act, 1882 provides that where the buyer has obtained possession of the property that is subject matter of the transfer, while fully complying with his part of the obligation under the agreement, the seller shall not be entitled to disturb the possession so granted to the buyer. In the instant case the assessee alongwith