BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, passed by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has declared rental income of Rs. 3,75,375/- after claiming 30% deduction of Rs. 1,60,875/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has directed to treat the income as business income instead of income from house property.; Hence, rectification

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

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

House Property Income which was wrongly calculated by the assessee in his return of income. Against the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed rectification application for which the CPC, Bengaluru passed an order u/s 154

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Property -38,129 E. Gross Total Income (B+C-D) 4,66,819 F. Deduction u/s 80C 1,17,392 G. Deduction u/s 80TTA 3,113 H. Total Income [E-F-G] 3,46,314 5 Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO I. Rounded off Rounded off 346,310 4. Thereafter, the return was processed

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

house property loss of Rs. 1,62,673/- against short term capital gains of Rs. 1,70,618/- as per section 71 of the Act. But ld. AO adjusted such loss against Business Income instead of short-term capital gain and accordingly the demand of Rs. 18,260/- was raised against the assessee u/s

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

house on certain plot 2. which was subsequently dropped and thus balance receivable cannot be taxed (b) assessee is following project completion method of accounting and therefore balance receivable cannot be assessed to tax in the year under consideration and by presuming that (c) the assessee earned on money on sale of plot since average sale rate of plot

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

rectifications u/s 154 of the Act.\n• Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT\n(2020) 3 TMI 279 has held:Taxation of income - whether the surrendered amount can\nbe taxable under section 115BBE read with section 69A of the Act or it was to be taxed\nas a regular business receipt

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Rectification application u/s 154, have different scope, object and purpose and in peculiar cases such as the present one, both these proceedings can be contested parallelly. 3. The learned CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi has further erred on facts as well as in law in declining to entertain the benefit of Sec. 54 of ITA pursuant to the assessee claiming Exemption

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Rectification application u/s 154, have different scope, object and purpose and in peculiar cases such as the present one, both these proceedings can be contested parallelly. 3. The learned CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi has further erred on facts as well as in law in declining to entertain the benefit of Sec. 54 of ITA pursuant to the assessee claiming Exemption

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house loan of Rs. 1,43,619/-." [Emphasis Supplied] 1. Accordingly, the provisions of section 115BBE were not invoked. Returned Income was accepted and resultantly no demand was raised. 2. The conscious call, of not assessing surrendered income as per the provisions of section 69/69A/698 and, accordingly, not applying the provisions of section 115BBE, is evident from the fact that

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

MAHESHWARI SAMAZ SAMPATI TRUST ,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property at Rs. 28,83,279/- and denying the claim of exemption. The appellant also contended that in respect of rectification application filed under section 154 against intimation under section 143(1) is based on the actual genuine facts of the case. The trust has filed an application for registration u/s

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal to the ld. CIT and then the latter passing the order u/s

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

154 r.w.s.250 was passed on 13.12.2024,\nclarifying the deduction amount.\nc) The assessee, in good faith, pursued the matter through grievance redressal\nmechanisms and rectification applications before approaching the Hon'ble\nITAT. As a result, the time elapsed in exhausting the available legal remedies.\n4\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\nd) The delay

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing

GUJRATI MAHAMANDAL HATI BHATA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house run by the society. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceeding, before the AO assessee has contended that as per xplantion 11(1) of the Act, the assessee did not received accured interest of Rs. 19,27,022/- but may deemed applied next year. For clamming exemption under Explanation (2)(i) below section 11(1), the assessee must exercise

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house properties situated in India and Income from business. For the relevant 3 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. previous year, assessee was a resident in India, in accordance with section 6 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, in accordance with section 5 read with section 4 and 6, assessee offered entire income earned by him, whether in India or outside India

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

rectification order u/s 154 rw.s. 143(3) dated 31.01.2021. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground During further appeal by the assessee company, the Hon'ble ITAT in its composite order in appeal No. 496 to 498 & 500/JP/2023 dated 21.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19, has allowed