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

transfer of immovable property". Section 50C, thus, on a conceptual note, is a provision to address capital gains tax evasion on account of understatement of the consideration. Of course, the law provides, under section 50C(2), that wherever an assessee claims that the actual market rate is less than the stamp duty valuation, he can have the matter referred

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

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

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of the case from ITO Alwar he proceeded to make the assessment as provision of section 144 of the Act because the notice issued by the ITO, Ward Behror were remained non-compliant and thereby 5 Jaiprakash Yadav vs. ITO the ld. AO made the assessment determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 67,69,092/- making

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1 ITR (Trib.) 452. While upholding the applicability of section 50C to the facts of the case, the Tribunal observed that section 45 provided a general rule that profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset would be chargeable to income-tax under the head capital gains, except as provided in section 54, 54F, etc. According

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 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

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

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

50C(1) are not applicable to s. 54F for the purpose of determining the meaning of full value of consideration.—Gyanchand Batra vs. ITO (2010) 45 DTR (Jp)(Trib) 41 : (2010) 133 TTJ (Jp) 482, Prakash Karnawat vs. ITO (2012) 49 SOT 160 (Jp) and Nand Lal Sharma vs. ITO (2015) 122 DTR (Jp)(Trib

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

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

section, 'net consideration', in relation to the transfer of a capital asset, means the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of 7 Shri Lalit Kumar Kalwar, Sarwar. the transfer of the capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer." 7]In Explanation to s. 54F(1

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

1 in Writ\nPetition No. 4793 of 2021 wherein it was held as under-\n“15. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the notice dated 24/3/2020 issued under\nSection 148 of the Act of 1961 seeking reopening of the assessment is\nbased on incorrect facts. The objections raised by the petitioner pointing out\nthe relevant facts including the proper

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

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

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

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

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/-.

1,73,050/- on 14/06/2012. However, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and after providing opportunity of hearing, the A.O. treated the DLV value on the date of registration as full value of consideration, therefore, by applying the provisions of Section 50C of the Act, the additions were made in the case of assessee

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

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

50C, there were several decisions to this effect\nthat the onus always lays on AO to prove that there was an\nunderstatement of consideration between the seller and buyer.\nReliance is placed on:\n1.1.8.1K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 7 Taxman 13/131 ITR 597 (SC) it\nwas held by Hon'ble apex court:\n“Since literal interpretation of section