AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property hence there was no question of submitting of any document in support thereof before the DDO. Notably the DDO also allowed only correct and legitimate deductions u/s 80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from form 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the appellant

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property to business income and was expecting an order from CIT(A) in its favour. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted that both the depreciation and interest on TDS

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property to business income and was expecting an order from CIT(A) in its favour. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted that both the depreciation and interest on TDS

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

house i.e. Flat No.701 situated at Plot No. 92, Shakti Nagar, Dushara Scheme, Kota with Parth Infraworks Private Limited, Kota for a total consideration of Rs.1,08,22,354/- and claimed exemption u/s 54F. Part Payment of purchased consideration was made through A/c Payee Cheque No.032005 for Rs.28,00,000/- and Cheque No. 032007 for Rs. 1,40,000 drawn

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property (PB 22-23). Sh. Nirmal Agarwal in his statement has stated that the property is owned by Smt. Nikita Dhariwal but the rent is paid by him to the assessee. This could not lead to an inference that the rental income is of assessee and not of Smt. Nikita Dhariwal. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT(A) that

CREDAI RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

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

house property as understood by A.O.) from which TDS u/s 194I (b) was deducted has not been shown in return

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.14,515/- had been made, in spite of the same being pointed out to him. He also ignored the bank statements of the assessee which substantiated the salary disclosed by the assessee. While confirming the addition, he laid emphasis on a trivial issue that the Form-16 issued by the Employer is unsigned. While dismissing the appeal

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.8 On perusal of the details in the profit & loss account it is noticed that the assessee has claimed house property

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House property. In view of above we submit that the income be taken Rs. 375361/- as business Income not Rs. 536340.00. 8 Bhim Singh vs. DCIT Ground 4: That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on law and f acts in not allowing the TDS

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property’’. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was pointed out by the AO that TDS u/s 194C was deducted

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

house of Smt.\nSunita Shekhawat were incorrectly relied upon. The ld. AR argued that the\nadditions were made without properly appraising the entire material available on\nrecord.\nIt was further submitted that the entries on the basis of which the additions were\nmade reflected loans that the assessee had taken and projections of the loan\namounts which could have been

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS certificates pertained to the earlier year and part of the royalty payment attributed to these certificates had already been claimed and allowed as deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. Thereafter, when the assessee was further questioned, with a cryptic reply by way of the letter dated Marc 14,2005, no cogent and reliable evidence were shown

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house in a joint name with the wife. 2.5 Being the sole owner, the assessee sold the booking rights, received the consideration in his bank account, claimed the TDS on the sale of the property

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

House Property and Other Sources. c. From the above details it can be understood that the appellant is not into the business activity three years prior to impugned FY 2016-17. The assessee placed reliance heavily on the cash in hand reflected in the FY 2012-13. No proofs are shown by the appellant in the form of bank account

ALL RAJASTHAN STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1, JAIPUR

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

house property are eligible for exemption U/s 10(24) of the Act. The ld AR has pointed out that as per the directions of the Tribunal, the assessee has filed all the relevant records in support of the claim of exemption U/s 10(24) of the Act including the situation of the assessee and registration of the Trade Union

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained