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

House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee claimed

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

House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee claimed

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

House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee claimed

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property a) Rented House Property- 81,973/- b) SOP House Property 1,50,000/- Total 5,06,678/- 2.4 The ld. AO alleged

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property on the basis of the notional income qua house property held as stock in trade. Therefore, he submitted

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

House Property”. Thus, as per charging section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

House Property”. Thus, as per charging section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business

DEVENDRA PRASAD TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO 2(1), JAIPRUR, NCRB BUILDING

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

House property, the ld. AR has also submitted following total income of house property while uploading the I.T. Return. Gross

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property purchased in the name of his wife. In this case the property which was sold, was belonging to the assessee

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

house property within stipulated time, irrespective of any number of residential houses owned by him. In this case, the assessee

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

property is not chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property and invested the sale proceeds in new residential house property. The assessee e-filed its return of income

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

house property but had done only renovation of the existing house. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

house property income in the instant case. Hence, the income received from rent should not be treated as house property

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

house property income in the instant case. Hence, the income received from rent should not be treated as house property

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. U R INVESTMENTS, JAIPUR

15. In view of the above discussion, finding no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, present appeal by the Department challenging the impugned order deserves to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house properties, and that, as such, it has been deriving rental income from, and income on sale of, house property

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

house property and accordingly claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. These facts were disclosed in return of income filed

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. 1.2. The assessee made investment, within stipulated time, in a residential house property. 1.3. The assessee was fulfilling