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 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

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

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

2. An application for the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner, under sub-section (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner and form. 3. Where, on the application duly made for sanction in respect ofany transaction specified in sub-section (1), the Assistant Commissioner does not, within two months of the receipt thereof, pass final orders, it shall be presumed

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

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

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

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

price lower than the value adopted by the Stamp valuation authority. During the course of assessment proceedings, the property was referred for valuation to DVO u/s 50C(2). Ld. AO while computing the capital gain on sale of above inherited residential properties, substituted the transaction value with the valuation done by Stamp Valuation Authority, being lower than the valuation made

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

LATE SHRI RAMAVTAR GUPTA L/H SMT. SHANTI DEVI C/O- JAIN & CO.228, CITY CENTRE, S.C. ROAD, JAIPUR-2368066,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 529/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta The Pr.Cit Vs. L/H Smt.Shanti Devi, 82, Nagar Palika Ki Alwar Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Bdgpr 3689 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 18-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

price. If the assessee has sold the property in various plots instead of one piece of land then the same would not change the character of the property which is a capital asset to trading activity. Thus even on merits of the issue, once the AO has accepted the transactions of sale of the 6 Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND KHANDELWAL, NAGAR PALIKA KI GALI RAJGARH, C/O- JAIN & CO. 228, CITY CENTRE, S.C. ROAD, JAIPUR-2368066,ALWAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 530/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cuke Shri Subhash Chand Khandelwal The Pr.Cit Vs. Nagar Palika Ki Gali, Rajgarh, Alwar Alwar Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@P An/Gir No.: Dmapk 5188 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta & Shri S.L.Jain ,Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Manisha Chandra, Cit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 12/12/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13 /12/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit, Alwar Dated 19-02-2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

price. If the assessee has sold the property in various plots instead of one piece of land then the same would not change the character of the property which is a capital asset to trading activity. Thus even on merits of the issue, once the AO has accepted the transactions of sale of the property as sale of capital asset

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2, 3 & 4:- The appellant has claimed that the deeming of provision of section 50C has a limited scope only to the extent of and for the purpose of section 48. It is further claimed that the process of arriving at Capital Gains and Exemption u/s 54 are two distinct and separate processes. It is further argued that section

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

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

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

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

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

price therefore, the AO is not justified in adopting the full value consideration U/s 50C of the Act, being the valuation adopted by the stamp valuation authority. He has further contended that the property was constructed by the tenant himself as it is evident from the sale deeds and therefore, stamp duty valuation for land and building cannot be adopted

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