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

house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back on an invalid ROI. It is not legally\npossible that for making assessment

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

house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back on an invalid ROI. It is not legally\npossible that for making assessment

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

house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back on an invalid ROI. It is not legally\npossible that for making assessment

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

house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back on an invalid ROI. It is not legally\npossible that for making assessment

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

house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back on an invalid ROI. It is not legally\npossible that for making assessment

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

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

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

depreciation against income from house property and hence, no double deduction of depreciation was claimed against business income as well

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property to business income and accordingly applied the provisions of explanation 5 to Sec. 43(1) of the act and reworked the depreciation

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property to business income and accordingly applied the provisions of explanation 5 to Sec. 43(1) of the act and reworked the depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation) in the assessment order. With regards to other issue, i.e. Rental income from let out of factory to be assessed under the head “Income from other sources” and not under the head “Income from house property

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments. unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house property. Likewise, the company may have income from other sources. The company may also, as in that case, keep the surplus funds in short-term deposits in order to earn interest. Such interest will be chargeable under section 56 of the Act. This court also emphasized the fact that the company was not bound to utilise the interest

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698 and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income 14 Yuwam Education Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur vs. DCIT where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

house property? No. The case laws cited by assessee are not relevant as in the case of assessee nexus between borrowed funds and investment as clearly established. The payments were directly made from overdraft account only and also admitted by assessee. Considering the above, disallowance of interest of Rs.20,45,751/- is confirmed. This Ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed