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

68,716/- as against the declared sale consideration and difference has further narrowed down, we deem it necessary to examine the said contention. 47. In this regard, it is noted that the legislature has inserted third proviso to Section 50C

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

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

68. This decision has been\narrived at by considering the Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla,\npopularly known as the Jain Hawala Case.\n\n1.6 In the case of Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Deputy CIT (2002) 74 TTJ (Luc) 976 held that\nloose paper cannot be construed as books and therefore Section

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

68,800—\nTherefore, the only available remedy to the assessee in respect of her capital\ngain is under s. 50C, which cannot be dispensed with merely due to the\nreason that the Valuation Officer has not chosen to pass orders regarding the\nvaluation in time—Therefore, order passed by AO accepting stamp duty value\nwithout waiting for report

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

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

50C.\nOther similar Judicial Pronouncements:\nDhanveer Singh Gambhir vs ITO (2015) 68 SOT 0343 (Indore)\n• Prakash Karnawat vs ITO (2012) 49 SOT 0160 (JP)\n• In Raj Babbar vs ITO (2013) 56 SOT 0001 (Mum)\n12\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\nThus the Id. AR of the assesee prayed to confirm

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

50C(2) of the Act comes into play only when the assessee claims before the AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property. However, in the case of the appellant, no such claim was made before the AO. The provision of section 43CA of the Act specifically

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

68.\nIn first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS, Paper Book and legal\nposition of law. However the Id. CIT(A) did not consider the same in\ntheir true perspective and sense and confirmed the addition by stating\nthat \"Thus it was imperative on the appellant to explain the source of\ncash deposit. The appellant has failed to prove that

AHMED ALI KHAN,TONK vs. ITO, TONK

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

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

68 (Bombay HC) Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO 11 ITR – Trib. 0120 (ITAT Mumbai) The ld. A/R therefore, submitted that in view of the above judicial pronouncements the application of provisions of section 50C

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

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery 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

KALURAM BUNKAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of sale of land, whereas assessee had claimed profit of 2 Shri Kaluram Bunkar, Jaipur. Rs. 24,048/- on sale of said land under trading activity pertaining to business. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please

SHYAM KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

68,48,688/-. The AO accordingly, proposed to adopt full value consideration by invoking the provisions of Section 50C

LATE SMT. SEEMA MUKHERJEE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

50C value of Plot No. 14, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Station Road, Jaipur of Rs.5,68,452/- and applied cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 and made addition of long term capital gain of Rs.5,20,577/-, which is not justified. 5 The Learned C.I.T. (A) & A.O. has not considered the fact on record, that property Plot of land

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

Section 50C(1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts and circumstances of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs 3,68

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

50C Rs 19,31,391 Less: Indexed cost of purchase Rs.2,06,624 Indexed cost of boundary wallRs.5,35,799 Indexed cost of mittibharai Rs. 3,91,430 4 KIRAN YADAV VS ITO, WARED 1(3), JAIPUR Security guard Rs. 75,949 Security guard Rs. 68,790 Security guard Rs. 63,380 Security guard Rs. 57,508 Security guard