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

section 50C of the IT Act 1961, and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 84,44,842 against the actual sale consideration of Rs.49,00,000. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the sale consideration

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

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

50C(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 from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A

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

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

House property, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration. Return of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on 13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp

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

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act are applicable. 5. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. Ground No. 1 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to confirming the action of the A.O. by the ld. CIT(A) in passing the order U/s 148/143

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

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

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

Housing Scheme at Kansua, Kota, for which an amount of Rs.20 crores was fixed, which has been paid along with interest to Shri Bakliwal, and the said document is a description of part payments made in this regard. On the basis of the above referred Page No. 56 and the statements of Shri R.K.Verma, the assessee was made to depose

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

DAMODAR LAL SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house atD-186, Vidhyadhar Nagar for Rs. 4 Shri Damodar Lal Soni vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Jaipur . 4,00,000/- showing Long term capital gain of Rs. 13,222/- thereon in the original return of income. The year of acquisition of the said property was shown as F.Y. 1993-94 and the year of improvement was shown

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C supported by the case laws was filed. (c) In reply dt. 20.11.2019 (PB 25-28), the blindness certificate of brother, evidence of brokerage paid on sale of land and evidence of expenditure incurred on the agriculture land was filed. (d) In reply dt. 21.11.2019, explanation with respect to investment in house property and evidence of expenditure incurred