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

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

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House\nproperty, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of\nassessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of\n“Purchase value of property less than the value

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

property\nto the proposed vendee but that is not the case at hand.\n22. In addition to the fact that the term \"transfer\" has been defined under\nSection 2(47) of the Act, even if looked at the provisions of Section 54 of the\nAct which gives relief to a person who has transferred his one residential house

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

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

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 VISION ESTATES 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

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE 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

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

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

47, 37, 17,000/- received on account of share of state Govt. and Nagar Nigam in sale under affordable housing scheme ignoring the fact that same is part of gross receipts. 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deletion of addition of amount of Rs. 3,78,58,000/- received on account of Niyaman of Agriculture land and Urban

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

47, 37, 17,000/- received on account of share of state Govt. and Nagar Nigam in sale under affordable housing scheme ignoring the fact that same is part of gross receipts. 5. Whether Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deletion of addition of amount of Rs. 3,78,58,000/- received on account of Niyaman of Agriculture land and Urban

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, 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

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