SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation\nOfficer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded

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

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

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

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

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

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

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

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the AO has called for the valuation report and in compliance thereto, the Valuation Officer has sent his Valuation report wherein FMV of the property situated at Plot No. 55A & 55B, Near Central Jail, Agra Road, Jaipur as on May, 2007 has been determined

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C(2)(a) of the Income tax Act, 1961, the AO has called for the valuation report and in compliance thereto, the Valuation Officer has sent his Valuation report wherein FMV of the property situated at Plot No. 55A & 55B, Near Central Jail, Agra Road, Jaipur as on May, 2007 has been determined

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

2) - Held, yes..”\n11. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

50C of the Act was correct.\n4. 7. In view of the facts narrated above, it is noted that the appellant sold an\nimmovable property and failed to offer to tax the capital gain arising out of this\ntransaction and also failed to declare the same in the return of income which the\nassessee failed to furnish/file. Hence I reject

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 50C of the Act. The decisions\nof the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held\nthat the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the\nfull amount invested in the new house property which in this case will be\nRs.27

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

2,65,99,000 \nbeing the alleged cash transaction between M/s. Millenium Build Home P. \nLtd and M/s Nevralji Estate P. Ltd.\n11. As is evident from the facts of the case narrated herein above that \ndisputes arise because the revenue collected some documents in that \nsearch and those documents were considering being the nature of \nincriminating and that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books of account

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2,40,000 31/03/2013 Investment in Const. of New 5,00,000 7,40,000 house 31/03/2014 Investment in Const. of New 6,49,100 13,89,100 house 31/03/2015 Investment in Const. of New 19,00,000 23,89,100 house 3]It is submitted that the provision of section 50C has not applicable in the case

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

House property : 32,09,810 Purchase consideration as per Registry 30,00,000 Add : Registry Charges 2,09,810 ------------- Taxable LTCG 33,65,628 The ld. AO did two corrections in the above said computation filed by the appellant i.e. He had adopted sale consideration in terms of section 50C

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

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

section 50C since the property sold for Rs. 5,00,000/- was valued at Rs. 30,56,063/- for the purposes of collection of stamp duty which resulted in income of Rs. 25,56,063/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The notice was issued to the assessee through ITBA and the same was delivered on 30.03.2021. The notice

M/S SPYTECH BUILDCON,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S Spytech Buildcon, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. 501, Geetansh Class Of Pearl, Circle-6, K-48-49, Income Tax Colony, Jaipur. Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abefs 2767 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Jaipur Dated 25/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Making Addition Of Rs. 5,39,711/- U/S 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Action Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Deleting The Said Addition Of Rs. 5,39,711/-.

house in the name and style of Spytech Buildcon. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 26/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs. 30,10,020/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was seen that the assessee firm had sold three flats for less than the value as per stamp valuation authority for which

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

2(47) of the Act, we\nare of the view that the appellants were entitled to relief under Section 54 of the\nAct in respect of the long term capital gain which they had earned in pursuance\nof transfer of their residential property being House No. 267, Sector 9-C,\nsituated in Chandigarh and used for purchase