INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

68,81,546/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs.5,39,67,684/- and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs.5,39,67,384/-. The AO noted that the sale of agricultural lands at Muhana, Sanganer have been made on 06/02/2013 and further agricultural lands purchased on 28/08/2014 at Mauja Shiekpur, Fatehabad. Thus, it was noted by the AO that

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

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

54F for the purpose of determining the meaning of full value\nof consideration. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.\nIn case of Gyanchand Batra, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (ITA No.\n9/JP/2010) dated 13th August, 2010 and has held as under:\n\"Capital gains – Exemption under s.54F – Full Value of consideration

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 54F of the Act.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that there has been a delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal. As per the affidavit submitted by the assessee, though he received the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the ld CIT(A) on 21.03.2020, however, due to Covid -19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 or section 69 of the Act is on the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that explanation offered by the assessee should be carefully examined by the AO to ascertain whether all the ingredients of the onus are proved by the assessee or not. The assessee is required to discharge the onus by producing evidence

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

54F of the IT Act. Therefore, the question of lack of enquiry does not arise when the AO has taken up the scrutiny and issued the notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire calling for all the details relevant to the acquisition of the land as well as of construction of house." 8. After responding

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,41,728/- as well as deduction under section 54B at Rs. 42,56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed

MANOHAR LAL ALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

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)

54F of Rs. 2,68,938/-in computing long term capital gain on sale of property. 5. Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,17,142/-on account of alleged short term capital gain ignoring that assessee sold his right in house property (101/161 Pratap Nagar) for Rs. 21,000/-on 10-06-2004 which it acquired

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

68 ITD 312 (Jp) 103 29 Kishan Chand chela Ram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 103-104 30 Gargidin Jawala Prasad v. CIT 96 ITR 97 (All) 104-105 31 Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) 105-106 32 ACIT v/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) 106-107 33 P.R. Gupta v/s DCIT

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

68,705/-\nas they were remained unexplained—However, while completing assessment\nAssessing Officer disallowed 25% of purchases for want of bills and vouchers—\nAssessing Officer also disallowed opening capital shown by assessee in his\ncapital account as no explanation was offered by assessee—There is one more\naddition which was made by assessee is in respect of license fee paid

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held\r\nthat a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or\r\n139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted\r\nupon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further\r\nproceedings in relation

NEELAM MEDATWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCTI-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

54F & valuation report for supporting evidences Rs.2,16,000/-. 6. The reply filed by the assessee through A/R on the ITBA portal vide letter dated 23.11.2018 and 04.12.2018 the details/information has been found verifiable, on the issues examined, no. adverse .inference has been drawn in the case over the issues involved ire the matter, hence the returned income shown

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

68 to 78 and the reasons being that the bill of the party received late and assessee being company without supporting documents it is the M/s Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur system of the assessee company not to book the claim of the expenditure. We find force in the arguments

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

68 to 78 and the reasons being that the bill of the party received late and assessee being company without supporting documents it is the M/s Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur system of the assessee company not to book the claim of the expenditure. We find force in the arguments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

54F of the Act is restricted to the amount of Rs.45,34,469/-. Accordingly the assessment was completed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied with the above order of the assessment the assessee has carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised before the ld. CIT(A), the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated

HANUMAN PRASAD ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 5(4), JAIPUR

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

54F with reference to the deemed consideration instead of actual consideration.’’ The Bench has taken into consideration the revised ground filed by the assessee (supra) which shall be adjudicated on merit hereunder. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are that the as per AIR details, the assesseee had sold immovable property

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

68. In this context, the above decision was rendered. The ratio laid in the above case squarely apply on the present case also in as much as here also, whereas the AO may disallowance u/s 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. Though the AO and CIT (A) both dealt with the issue relating to the interest but in any case

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

68. In this context, the above decision was rendered. The ratio laid in the above case squarely apply on the present case also in as much as here also, whereas the AO may disallowance u/s 36 (1) (iii) of the Act. Though the AO and CIT (A) both dealt with the issue relating to the interest but in any case