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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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/-.

2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee derived income from house property, capital gain and interest. He filed his return of income on 14/06/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,73,050/-. The assessment

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

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

2) of the Act cannot be construed as having a reference to the market value of the asset transferred but the expression only meant, the full value of a consideration received by the transferor in exchange of the capital asset transferred by him. The Supreme Court also observed that in the case of a sale the full value of consideration

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

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 52(2

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

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