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

50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation\nto determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under sub-\nsection (1).\nNow the provisions of Section 50 C are quoted below :-\n50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of\nthe transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of the old asset, charge of the capital gain was only on the old asset, and investment in new asset did not and could not nullify or take away the case from the charging section 45. According to the Tribunal, first it was section 45 which came into operation, then it was section 48 which provided computation of capital

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

price and also, there is no mention of any condition for getting the properties vacated by 11 Manoj Kumar, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Jaipur the assessee. Further, referring to the provisions of section 50C, the AO held that the report of the DVO is binding on him and thus, the contentions so advanced by the assessee was held

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

section 50C of the IT Act. In any case, in case of Trust, the sale consideration of the property held under Trust has to be verified to avoid any misuse and in the case in hand it is apparent that a huge difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee at Rs. 60,00,000/- and the valuation determined

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer and payment\nof stamp duty etc. Appellant prays that since payment of part sale consideration\nwas made through banking channels in terms of such agreement cum letter of\n6\nITA No. 744/JP/2023\nNarain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT\nallotment, assessee is covered by section 56(2)(x) and date of agreement is to be\ntreated as date of sale

SHRI DHARAMVIR SINGH ,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 Shri Dharamvir Singh, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. S/O- Shri Inder Singh, 523, Near Ward 2(1) Gurudwara, Bhimganjmandi, Kota. Kota Jn., Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Axops 4086 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Swapnil Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Kota Dated 27/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Sole Ground Of Appeal Which Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 16,89,423/-.

price of the plot in question. The ld AR has drawn our attention to the copy of sale deed which is at page No. 3 to 9 of the paper book which also reflects that the total sale consideration of Rs. 11,25,000/- was received by the assessee and the same is incorporated in the sale deed. The assessee

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

price of such\ndocument is Rs. 5,57,69,640/- which has been considered as the purchases\nprice of the property acquired by the AO while making the impugned addition.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjiv Lal vs. CIT 365 ITR 389 while\nconsidering the question as to whether the date on which agreement for sale

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

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

price bargained for. Nor did it have any necessary references to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer." 9] That the provision of section 50C

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 50C (40% share) Rs. 77,67,931/- Less: 1. Indexed cost of acquisition as shown by the assessee. Rs. 2,38,853/- 2. Expesnes on account of patta and registration charges paid to JDA Rs. 9,53,640/- Long term capital gain Rs. 65,75,438/- Deduction u/s 54 Investment in new asset Rs. 32,09,810/- (Purchase consideration

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

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

price bargained for. Nor did it have any necessary references to the market value of the capital asset which is the subject-matter of the transfer." That the provision of section 50C

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)

Transfer Expenses 0 1000000 Less: Indexed Cost Cost of Purchase 206624 F.Y. 2007-08 101200/551*1125 Boundary Wall 347290 F.Y. 2009-10 195100/632*1125 Mitti Bharai 178802 F.Y. 2008-09 92500/582*1125 ------------------ 732716 267284 ---------- Gross Total Income 267284 Total Income 267284 Rounded off u/s 288A 267280 Adjusted total income (ATI) is not more than Rs. 20 Lakh, hence

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

transfer and Rs. 4.25 lacs through cheque rejection. On going through return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2018-19, it is noticed that income from above transaction has not been included in ITR. The ld. AO noted that in the assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessee failed to provide true and correct information / material

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

transferred to NFAC. The NFAC has passed the Exparty order on\ndt.29.11.2023, despite the Ws and reply filed by the assessee. The order was received on\nportal on dt. 29.11.2023 and on email, which was not served upon the assessee physical.\nHowever as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 28.01.2024 but the\nsame

SHREEYANS KUMAR GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

50C (2) and (3). 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at NFAC, Delhi has further erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned Assessing Officer's action of taxing the whole sale consideration in the hands of the assessee alone as against fact evidenced by assessment orders that assessee had only 1/6 share in the land

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

Price. Cost Expens Cost of\nel Year Year\nes Improvel\nCost\nPLOT 87, HBU NAGAR\nAJMER\n15/02/2\n006\n034/32\n670000\n311740\n000\n000\n000\n358260\n0.00\n670000\n165000\n0.00\n00\n00\nPEARL ANANDA (500\n2013-14\n280041\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n0.00\n260041\n0.00\n260041\n0.00\n0.00\nVALUE\n00\n00\nTotal\n930041\n311740\n0.00\n000\n000\n618301\n0.00\n930041\n165000\n0.00

RAJKUMARI GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , STATUE CIRCLE

Appeal is allowed

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

transfer of property under the 5 Rajkumari Gupta vs. ITO head “Income from other Sources”. On this issue the ld. AO noted as under However, the assessee, in return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s 148, has reported the sale of the property in question and its profit under Point No. 51 of Part

ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred to jurisdictional AO {I.T.O. Ward 3(4), Jaipur} who, after issuing notice under sec. 142(1) of Act on 18.01.2016 reassessed the income of assessee, reopened by non-jurisdiction AO. The addition made under section 50C of Act by AO for both the Agricultural lands were deleted by ld. CIT(A) by accepting fair market value of both

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

price paid for settling a \ndispute by Shri R.K.Verma. So, there exists a quid-pro-quo in this \ntransaction. In a legal context, it refers to a situation where one party provides \nsomething of value to another party in exchange for something in return. The amount has not been \nreceived without consideration. Consideration is something of value exchanged \nbetween