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

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

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

House Property’ is appearing same as Rs.1,37,444/- then the AO should have asked the reasons from the assessee before passing the order either u/s 143(1) or u/s 154 instead of making addition of Rs.1,56,556/- by disallowing

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Income tax Act. Consequently, no capital gain was chargeable under the head Long term capital gain on sale of above immovable property. Despite

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 properties. Hence the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F. When the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F, long term capital gain arises from the sale of residential plot was to be charged accordingly. 6 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of long-term capital gain

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 has been rightly disallowed

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

disallowance has neither been discussed in order passed u/s. 143(3) nor in order u/s. 154. The appellant has claimed in the statement of facts that he sold his share in residential house property

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

house property and added as “income from other sources”. It was further submitted that as the conditions of concessional allotment was flouted by the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not entitled for deduction @ 30% U/s 24A and interest expenses U/s 24B of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated

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

house property and added as “income from other sources”. It was further submitted that as the conditions of concessional allotment was flouted by the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not entitled for deduction @ 30% U/s 24A and interest expenses U/s 24B of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated

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 carried out by it. However, Ld. AO recomputed the cost of acquisition claimed by assessee and also disallowed

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,71,628/-. 10. Taking up the alternate plea of the assessee that the interest expenditure is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Act, we have gone through the provisions of law in this regard. Section 24(b) reads as under:- Deductions from income from house property

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)

house property is restricted to Rs 4,39,750/- (598788-159038). In support of the above, receipts from JDA and Municipal Corporation are available on Paper Book Page No.83." The appellant has raised the additional claim on the issue of lease rent and municipal taxes however the same is not seen to be arising from any disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed (not allowed) these losses (business loss and 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

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2017, the assessee was asked to show as to why the excess interest payment of Rs. 8,41,260/- should not be disallowed