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

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

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

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

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

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

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 property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made

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

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration. Equating

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made

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