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

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the IT Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assess didn’t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54.’ On the above ground, the following is submitted: 1

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.”

section of s. 139. Hence, one cannot interpret that s. 139 mentioned should be read as s. 139(1). Similar language is appearing in s. 54(2). In the instant case, it is not disputed that sale consideration has been utilised before the date of filing of the return under s. 139(4). The assessee is entitled to exemption

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

1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in upholding the addition of INR 17,09,798/- without considering and appreciating the intent and purpose of the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. The addition so confirmed by the CIT(A), being totally contrary to the provisions

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow deduction u/s 54F. AO is directed to allow exemption of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- u/s 54F as claimed by appellant. Ground No. 1 is thus allowed.” 13. Subsequently, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) wherein he has allowed the deduction of section

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 claim u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961:- During the year under consideration, assessee has sold an immovable property situated at B-2/4, Rajeev Gandhi Ward, Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow on 06.04.2014 for sale consideration of Rs. 1,69,50,000/- whereas the stamp valuation authority has adopted the value of the property for the purposes

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,15,00,000/-in construction of residential house and, therefore entitled to claimed deduction u/s 54F. The Ld. A.O. is wrong and has erred in law in disallowing the claimed deduction of Rs. 83,54,434/- u/s 54F the Act, which deserves to be allowed. 5. We found that in the previous year relevant to the above said assessment

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.

1,09,42,400.00 made by Learned A.O on account of disallowance of deduction under section 54F as claimed by assessee

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

disallowed as per the provisions of section 54B of the Act in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act, thus the consequential of breach of provisions of section 54B was discussed and assessed separately in AY 2016-17. Further, the assessee also claimed Rs.45,34,469/- u/s 54F of the Act in its ITR filed

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

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

1) (iii) of the Act. Though the AO and CIT (A) both dealt with the issue relating to the interest but in any case, they applied altogether different provisions of the Act and each provision has got his own significance operating in different fields and provides for disallowance/ income hence cannot be intermixed/ inter changed to justify the action

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

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

1) (iii) of the Act. Though the AO and CIT (A) both dealt with the issue relating to the interest but in any case, they applied altogether different provisions of the Act and each provision has got his own significance operating in different fields and provides for disallowance/ income hence cannot be intermixed/ inter changed to justify the action