INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, 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

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

50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment

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

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

transfer its part of agriculture land (0.2300 hectares) to one of its partners shri Sitaram on redemption as part of capital redemption while sale deed dated 5/11/2011 for Rs. 1,81,95,000/- the cost of the land against the sale was Rs. 2,04,19,388/- the stamped authority adopted value for the purpose of stamp duty

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

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

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

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

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

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