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

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty

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

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 in allowing deduction under section property 154 of Rs.2429590/- only instead of actual expenses incurred of Rs.6154101/- thereby making addition of Rs.3724511/- Thus, from above it is clear that the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the validity of the rectification proceedings on the ground that such a rectification

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143(3)/148 on 23.08.2018 at an income of Rs. 14,09,150/-. While framing assessment, penalty

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

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 will not be eligible for carry forward following the same approach adopted in the assessment order. This issue is interlinked and emanating from the revised computation submitted by the appellant to the assessing officer and also to the findings of the assessing officer in the assessment order and it can be said that the depreciation was overlooked inadvertently

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property declared by assessee by holding that the same should be assessed as Income from Other Sources. Aggrieved of Bench. 4. The AO arrived the findings the amount of Rs. 15,34,28,700/- will be taxed as per provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Penalty

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: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

house property. Ld. DR also filed a detailed written submission and case laws in support of her contention to support the orders of the lower authority. The written submission filed by the ld. DR reads as follows: It is most respectfully submitted that the revenue is placing reliance on Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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. Ld. DR also filed a detailed written submission and case laws in support of her contention to support the orders of the lower authority. The written submission filed by the ld. DR reads as follows: It is most respectfully submitted that the revenue is placing reliance on Judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

property and sold within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the old house. In case of compulsory acquisition the period of acquisition or construction

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

property and sold within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within a period of three years from the date of transfer of the old house. In case of compulsory acquisition the period of acquisition or construction

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)

penalty for misreporting of income is not justified on the facts as mentioned and Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT discussed herein above and respectfully following the binding judicial decision. 12. Alternatively as argued even on merits of the case the bench noted that the depreciation on certain house property

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)

penalty for misreporting of income is not justified on the facts as mentioned and Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT discussed herein above and respectfully following the binding judicial decision. 12. Alternatively as argued even on merits of the case the bench noted that the depreciation on certain house property

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property” may be allowed as deduction under the head “Income from profession” wherein the assessee has disclosed and offered to tax his professional receipts. We find that the alternate contention so raised by the assessee has not been addressed by the AO and even by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in such circumstances, we are constrained to remand the matter

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property” may be allowed as deduction under the head “Income from profession” wherein the assessee has disclosed and offered to tax his professional receipts. We find that the alternate contention so raised by the assessee has not been addressed by the AO and even by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in such circumstances, we are constrained to remand the matter

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property” may be allowed as deduction under the head “Income from profession” wherein the assessee has disclosed and offered to tax his professional receipts. We find that the alternate contention so raised by the assessee has not been addressed by the AO and even by the ld CIT(A). Therefore, in such circumstances, we are constrained to remand the matter

PRAMOD BANSAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 224/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Pramod Bansal Enterprises (P) Ltd The Acit Vs. 2-Ka-14, Vigyan Nagar Circle-1 Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcp 7265 Q Vihykfkhz@ Appellant Izr;Fkhz@ Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls @Assessee By :Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Rai, Dcit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /10/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16-01-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Kota For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal. ‘’1. That The Ao Has Grossly Erred On Law & Facts In Considering The Income At The Notional & Estimated Of Rent Of House No. 125, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota Rs. 4,04,215/- Whereas The House Was Vacant, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao. That After Allowing Deduction U/S 24(1) The Addition Is Made For Rs. 2,82,950/-.

penalty paid for unauthorized construction. The assessee has not shown any income from this particular house property. The AO also