ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SMT. ABDA BAI, KOTA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 54D and 54F and assessed income is remained same in that circumstance. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that this excess deduction is neither any income nor the loss or like unabsorbed depreciation

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

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. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an application of income u/s 11. In view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in accordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

54F, AO was directed to\nverify genuineness and veracity of claim of assessee—Claim of exemption_u/s\n54F, as raised by assessee should be allowed—Assessee's appeal allowed.\n6.2 However the assessee had filed the ROI and Audit report in response to\nthe notice u/s 148. As per the section 147 and section 148 of the Income

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

54F, AO was directed to\nverify genuineness and veracity of claim of assessee—Claim of exemption_u/s\n54F, as raised by assessee should be allowed—Assessee's appeal allowed.\n6.2\nHowever the assessee had filed the ROI and Audit report in response to\nthe notice u/s 148. As per the section 147 and section 148 of the Income

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

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

GOVERDHAN PRASHAD SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, JAIPUR

54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 though the assessee had more than one house property. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief to the assessee by considering lesser value u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the property sold as taken by the assessee

DCIT, C-6, JAIPUR vs. GOVERDHAN PRASAD SINGHAL, JAIPUR

54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 though the assessee had more than one house property. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing relief to the assessee by considering lesser value u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 of the property sold as taken by the assessee

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation of Rs.6.88Cr. However, while computing the available interest free fund for the purposes of computation of the disallowance of interest, he allowed the credit of Rs. 8.56 Cr. only as against the amount contended by the CIT(A) himself of Rs.10.79 Cr. which, appears to be typing mistake only. He appears to have taken the figure of the preceding

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation of Rs.6.88Cr. However, while computing the available interest free fund for the purposes of computation of the disallowance of interest, he allowed the credit of Rs. 8.56 Cr. only as against the amount contended by the CIT(A) himself of Rs.10.79 Cr. which, appears to be typing mistake only. He appears to have taken the figure of the preceding