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

section 194C(7) of the Act. The ld DR has further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in treating the rental income received from M/s L&T Ltd. as Income from house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development

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

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

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property is extinguished by execution of an\nagreement to sell, the capital asset can be deemed to have been transferred.\nRelevant portion of Section 2(47), defining the word \"transfer\" is as under:\n'2(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes, -\n(i) xxxx xxxx\n(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or......' 21.\nNow

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the statutes

RIMJHIM GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.116/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cuke Smt. Rimjhim Gupta The Ito Vs. B-101, Jawahar Enclave, Jawahar Nagar Ward- 6 (1), Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 3466 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Anil Kaushik, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07 /08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 30-11-2015 For The Assessment Year 2009-10, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Decline The Exemption Claimed U/S 54 Of The Act In Respect Of Capital Gains Earned On Sale Of Property Which Was Reinvested In The New House Property.

47,461/- on sale of above property as long term capital gain and claimed the entire gain as exempted u/s 54 of the Act since the entire gain was invested in the new house property. However, the AO treated the date of purchase of said flat as 6-02-2006 in place of assessee's claim

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta) in which it was held that “....For the\naforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the valuation by the departmental\nvaluation officer, contemplated under Section 50C, is required to avoid miscarriage of\njustice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the\nbasis of the valuation to be made

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.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,789/-. This has been accepted by the AO. Since assessee has purchased the residential land for Rs.23,41,728/- and Rs.45,00,000/- is deposited in capital gain account scheme, totaling to Rs.68,41,728/-, 5 Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pareek, Jaipur. assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 to work out capital gain separately on sale of house

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,645/- claimed by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee purchased the agriculture land and constructed a residential house on the same and the same is eligible to claim the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 5. That the ld. PCIT has erred in proposing to disallow the indexed cost of construction expenses

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)

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

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

47), i.e. definition of "transfer", which would enable the assessee to get the benefit under section 54 of the Act” As per the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, purposive interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be given while considering a claim for exemption from tax. Basis the same, section 54F of the Act was inserted

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,290/- for the reason that (i) against the actual sales consideration of Rs.50 lacs, the stamp authorities have evaluated the same at Rs.85,37,160/- (ii) deduction claimed u/s 54F is on account of investment made in purchase of house property in the name of wife Smt. Deepawali Agarwal and sister-in-law Smt. Santosh Agarwal which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

property hectare) M/s Rigid Conductors Jhai 538, 542, 543, 535, 0.75 (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. 537/740 Jhai 664, 663,262-565, 6.975 579-586, 558, 661, 566, 567-569, 557 Total 7.725 The above land was acquired for Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For this purpose a notification dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

property hectare) M/s Rigid Conductors Jhai 538, 542, 543, 535, 0.75 (Raj.) Pvt. Ltd. 537/740 Jhai 664, 663,262-565, 6.975 579-586, 558, 661, 566, 567-569, 557 Total 7.725 The above land was acquired for Special Economic Zone (SEZ) under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For this purpose a notification dated