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

deductions under sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property

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

deductions under sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property

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

deductions under sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property

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

deductions under sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property

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

deductions under sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property

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

deduction in cases of mix house property as the section itself speaks of deduction on the basis of the house

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

deduction was claimed by the assessee u/s 54/54F. Therefore, this will not constitute a separate house for the purpose of computing the limit of ‘owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset’ as per provisions of Proviso to Sec. 54F. 14. Therefore, on 27/7/2012, when the impugned Residential House Property

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

housing purpose and accordingly, the ld. AO allowed the interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the self occupied property and disallowed the deduction

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

house property’ and consequently allowing the deduction U/s 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the facts of the case

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

house property’ and consequently allowing the deduction U/s 24 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the facts of the case

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

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

house property from the said property and therefore, the basic conditions of eligibility 6 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur under Section 54 of the Act has not satisfied in the instant case and therefore, the deduction

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 by applying notional rent on the closing stock. 4. In respect of Additional Ground and Ground No. 1, before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the objection raised by the assessee was not disposed. In the objections filed vide letter dated 17.11.2017 the following issues were raised :- “that the assessment of the assessee

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 by applying notional rent on the closing stock. 4. In respect of Additional Ground and Ground No. 1, before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the objection raised by the assessee was not disposed. In the objections filed vide letter dated 17.11.2017 the following issues were raised :- “that the assessment of the assessee

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

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

property and has also paid the interest of Rs.1,56,556/- on house loan. The ld. AR submitted that all these details are reflecting in Form 16 and while filing the return of income the assessee had shown headwise income and deduction

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

Deductions from income from house property. 24.” Income chargeable under the head “Income from house property” shall be computed after

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deduction u/s 54F of the Act in respect of residential house property purchased in the name of his wife. In this

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 property, the gross annual rent received in respect of each immovable property, the amount of deduction claimed u/s 24(a) of the Act and the amount

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property (as declared) Rs. 10,81,941/- Income from business (after deduction of Rs. Nill surrendered income) Income from

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property then the assessee shall be allowed deduction u/s 54F. The purchase made by the assessee was within the period