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

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

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

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

54F (4) along with section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under section 139(1) only not under section 139(4) of the Act." 15. Tribunal, as a matter of fact, has accorded one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to place on record relevant facts for consideration and if his case were

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F particularly when the appellant has made investment of whole of the net consideration received in construction of new property. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 9. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise

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

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

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

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

disallowed as this investment/ construction was also beyond the time limit as per section 54F i.e. made in F.Y. 2013-14, i.e. beyond

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

disallowing the appellant's claim u/s. 54F of the Act, after proper examination of the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant during the course of re-assessment proceedings and material available on record. Hence, I don't find any fault with the action of the Ld. AO. Accordingly. the addition made by the Ld.AO is hereby upheld and the grounds

ANJU SANGHI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalanju Sanghi, 31, Meghdhan Complex Ambabari, Jaipur 302 023 Pan No.: Amtps 3732L ...... Appellant

54F OF THE INCOME TAX. 2. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE BROUGHT FORWARD LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF Rs. 6, 34,493/-. 3. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMTANCES OF THE CASE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the During the Appellant proceedings, the Appellant has submitted detailed reply reiterating the facts submitted before AO and claimed that the capital gain the transfer of original asset was taxable in the year, when the stock in trade is sold. However, conditions for claiming exemption u/s 54B are very clear about the time limits for making investment

ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, SIDDHNATH BHAWAN LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR vs. PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, JAIPUR

12. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the department is hereby dismissed as deemed to have been withdrawn due to low tax effect

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, AM, SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of deduction of the said amount claimed u/s 54F of the Act. As per record, the assessee had declared income to the tune of Rs. 84,21,750/-. 4. Arguments heard. File perused. 5. In brief, the facts as available from the assessment order are that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny (CASS), whereupon notice

MANOHAR LAL ALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of claim of cost of improvement of Rs.54,200 and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 2,68,938/-in computing long term capital gain on sale of property. 5. Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,17,142/-on account of alleged short term capital gain ignoring that assessee sold his right in house property (101/161 Pratap

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)

disallowance and deleting the said addition of Rs.63,95,407. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of making addition of Rs. 4,24,14,300 u/s 69. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against