LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F
…ation, not revised return can not claim any such additional deductions or exemption. 2 Ultratech Cement vs. Addl.CIT 81 taxmann.com 74 (Bombay) (2017) 3 CIT vs. G.S. Rice Mills 136 ITR 761 (1982) (Allahabad High Court) 4. Intex Link Petroleum Ltd. vs. DCIT 83 TTJ 274 (Allah ITAT) (2004). 13. Further, the investment in the house property was made in F.Y. 2013-14 which was beyond time limit of three years as per section 54F in F.Y. 2013-14. No evidence could be furnished before the AO regarding time of construction of residential house property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale p…