SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance ignoring the fact that the appellant has invested the entire consideration received by her in purchase residential house and has rightly claimed deduction under section 54F

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the Act has not been substantiated by the assessee with any documentary\nevidences during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, the AO was\nrequired to disallow the same and add back to the total income of the assessee for the year\nunder consideration and charge tax accordingly. However, the AO, vide the assessment\norder

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections. Therefore, AO is not justified to disallow deduction u/s 54F. AO is directed to allow exemption of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- u/s 54F

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. Now the assessee is in further appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee submitted that in this case the sale consideration was received at Rs. 7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 & 12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 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-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

disallowance of the claim of assessee u/s 54F was specifically gone 8 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT into and examined by the Assessing Officer. Thus, it was not a case of 'no inquiry' but specific and pointed enquiries by the Assessing Officer. The said finding could have been set aside and negated only with a finding

SHREYA SINGHVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance of deduction under section 54F as claimed by assessee in her return of income. The Appellant prays that the addition

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the exemption us 54F amounting to Rs 34,25,398/-. Appellant prays that such exemption being duly allowable as claimed, the addition made deserves to be deleted. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the act of computation of exemption eligible us 54F by considering the deemed value (stamp duty value

SMT. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

section 54F, then the non-deposit of the entire amount in the Capital Gain Account cannot be a reason for disallowance

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital

SHRI DINESH NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (T& J), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him Even Though He Had All The Powers To Entertain Such Claim.

disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 5,98,464/- u/s 54F of Income tax Act. Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of learned AO. 3. Learned AO and CIT (A) have erred in not following binding Circular No. 14(XI-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.55 of CBDT supported by plethora of judgements from

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Income tax Act. Consequently, no capital gain was chargeable under the head Long term capital gain on sale of above immovable property. Despite these facts, the AO while completing assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 08/12/2018 disallowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SHARWAN LAL MEENA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Is A Civil Liability.

54F which were disallowed by the AO. Consequently, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings in respect of the addition of capital gain due to disallowance of claim of deduction under section

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F on the ground that the assessee did not construct any house property but had done only renovation of the existing house. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the assessee has constructed a new house after demolition of old house. However

VIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Ground As Under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner Has Not Accorded Proper Satisfaction In Terms Of Section 151 For Reopening Of Assessment U/ 148.” 3. Since, The Additional Ground Is Legal In Nature & Was Raised In Respect Of The Approval Granted By The Pr. Cit U/S 151 Of The Act

disallowed the claim U/s 54F of the Act on the ground that the benefit of section 54F cannot be granted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F was to be disallowed and income from the sale of plots was to be assessed as business income. Therefore, vide provision of section

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowed said claim. Even before us, the appellant has not produced any material or evidence in support of said claim. 6 Daulat Singh Haldea, Jaipur. Therefore, as regards the claim of transfer expenses, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. As such, the impugned order to this extent is upheld. Another grievance

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

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F without appreciating the facts discussed by the AO. AO in the assessment order. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 2,32,310/- made by AO on account of commission on accommodation of entry without appreciating the facts discussed