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

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

section 54 of the Act." The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Office vs. Rajkumar Parashar (2018) 195 TTJ (Jp) 212(DPB 10-17) it was held as: “Where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the I.T. Act of property which was acquired in A.Y 2016-17 and in the absence of specific percentage of investment not shown in the said purchase deed there cannot be an order which is passed by the Assessing Officer after verifying all the records cannot be termed as prejudicial or erroneous. 16. Per contra

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

54F of the IT Act. Therefore, the question of lack of enquiry does not arise when the AO has taken up the scrutiny and issued the notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire calling for all the details relevant to the acquisition of the land as well as of construction of house." 8. After responding

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

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F is required to be disallowed, her finding at the same time directing the AO to examine and verify the issues is contradictory in itself. The Ld. PCIT cannot blow hot and cold in the same breathe. In this connection, reliance is placed on paragraph 22 of the order of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in case of Sir Dorabji Tata

DHAPU DEVI MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

transfer, read with Section 4, 45, 47, 48 (mode of computation) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Appellant Assessee was entitled for the Fair Market Value as cost of acquisition of the said agricultural land, which was acquired before 01/04/1981. The Learned A.O. has not calculated

NEMI CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

transfer, read with Section 4, 45, 47, 48 (mode of computation) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Appellant Assessee was entitled for the Fair Market Value as cost of acquisition of the said agricultural land, which was acquired before 01/04/1981. The Learned A.O. has not calculated

JAGDISH PRASAD MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

transfer, read with Section 4, 45, 47, 48 (mode of computation) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Appellant Assessee was entitled for the Fair Market Value as cost of acquisition of the said agricultural land, which was acquired before 01/04/1981. The Learned A.O. has not calculated

SUSHILA DEVI MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

transfer, read with Section 4, 45, 47, 48 (mode of computation) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Appellant Assessee was entitled for the Fair Market Value as cost of acquisition of the said agricultural land, which was acquired before 01/04/1981. The Learned A.O. has not calculated

MANNA LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

transfer, read with Section 4, 45, 47, 48 (mode of computation) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and under the law, the Appellant Assessee was entitled for the Fair Market Value as cost of acquisition of the said agricultural land, which was acquired before 01/04/1981. The Learned A.O. has not calculated

SHRI MATHUR LAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 45 as the income of the previous year in which the period of two years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires; and (ii) the assessee shall be entitled to withdraw such amount in accordance with the scheme aforesaid.” Thus, the provisions envisaged the benefit of deduction when the capital gain arising from the transfer

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that except the agricultural land, no other asset is sold under the said sale deed. Therefore, the assessee has sold only the agricultural land along with the construction of the building. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions

ITO, BEHROR vs. SUCHET SINGH YADAV, BEHROR

price can be determined on the basis of a cancelled agreement or not; 5 ITA No. 428/JP/2016. Sh. Suchet Singh Yadav, Behror. (iii) Whether the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act is to be given or not and if yes, in the hands of individual or an HUF; (iv) Whether the gains on sale of land have

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of taxable income in the hand of the buyer, simply because there is a wide gap between the actual consideration and fair market value. For the above 10 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur contention, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

54F in respect of investment in immovable property claimed on the basis of undisputed valuation report of the registered valuer. 5. That the CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the rejection of claim of Rs. 36,70,000 under section 54B/54F holding that agricultural land (investment) was purchased (made) after the due date of filing return of income under

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