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

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, or Income from other sources and the expression improvement shall be construed accordingly 1(2) 2[For the purposes of sections 48 and 49, cost of acquisition, (b) in relation to any other capital asset. ] (i) where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 41st

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.

house property. However, the AO treated the date of purchase of said flat as 6-02-2006 in place of assessee's claim of 18-10-2005. There is no merit in the finding of the AO for considering the date of purchase of the said flat by the assessee as on 6-02-2006 instead

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house in the name of wife for Rs. 7,20,000/- and claimed deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that once the assessee has produced the documents through which the assessee has made the investment then the claim of deduction under section 54B and 54F cannot be denied merely

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

House of Lords in L' Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 20 has said the question of fairness has to be answered by taking into account various factors, viz., value of the rights which the statute affects; extent to which that value is diminished or extinguished by the suggested retrospective effect

M/S. SEATEL ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR

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

House of Lords in L' office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 20 has said the question of fairness has to be answered by taking into account various factors, viz., value of the rights which the statute affects; extent to which that value is diminished or extinguished by the suggested retrospective effect

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year

ACIT, KOTA vs. SMT. ZAHIDA BANO, KOTA

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

53A of the Transfer 2 ACIT vs. Smt. Zahida Bano, Kota of Property Act are satisfied then the transfer of land in question was completed on the date when the assessee has entered into an agreement and allowed the developer to construct the flat on the plot of land. He has submitted that as per the agreement dated