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

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

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 54F being

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3]It is submitted that the provision of section 50C has not applicable in the case of the assessee as entire actual sale consideration received by the assessee was invested in the construction of new house. The meaning of full value of consideration as referred to in Explanation to s. 54F(1) is not governed by the meaning

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