VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

10 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT The family is a content family and the proposition of “a house” has been fulfilled with investment made by assessee out of sale proceeds of the property situated at Lucknow. Assessee submits that the conditions prescribed as per law were fulfilled. It is submitted that ld. AO has discussed the above proposition

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

housing, road infrastructure, water suooly, sewage, treatment, supply of food grains, medicines, etc., with or without regulatory powers, mere fact that some surolus or gain is derived would not disentitle them from benefit of section 10(46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

housing, road infrastructure, water suooly, sewage, treatment, supply of food grains, medicines, etc., with or without regulatory powers, mere fact that some surolus or gain is derived would not disentitle them from benefit of section 10(46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20,00,000/- 17/03/2008 2. Ltd. Repayment of loan to IDBI Repayment 15,34,481/- 06/03/2008 taken for construction of 3. ground floor and 1st floor 1,97,028/- F.Y. 2007-08 Construction Expenses – 4. Expenses Second Floor 1,33,486/- F.Y. 2008-09 5. Interest & Other Expenses Expenses 1,85,005/- F.Y. 2007-08 TOTAL 45,00,000/- Above

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

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 at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

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 at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

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 at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

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 at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

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 at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that as co- operative society so as to claim the provision of section 80P of the Act. Thus, there is no means by which the payee

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

20,00,000 based on Pg. No. 116 and 142 of\nExhibit 1 to Annexure-A, and Rs. 1,16,00,000 based on Pg. No. 24 and 25 of\nExhibit 2 to Annexure-A. It was submitted before us that no addition could be\nmade based on the alleged loans, as the documents were rough notes without\nsubstantive corroborative

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.

20. Article 289 of the Constitution of India supplants the charging section i.e., Section 4 of the Act in as much as the income of the State Government is exempt from Union Taxation. Neither Section 4 and/or Section 2(24) of the Act i.e., chargeability provision and provision defining income lays down any exception with regard to any income earned

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.

20. Article 289 of the Constitution of India supplants the charging section i.e., Section 4 of the Act in as much as the income of the State Government is exempt from Union Taxation. Neither Section 4 and/or Section 2(24) of the Act i.e., chargeability provision and provision defining income lays down any exception with regard to any income earned

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

20,10,610/- was directed to made in A.Y.\n2015-2016 when part of the payment made by the assessee pertained to A.Y.\n2013-2014 (Rs.32,16,408/-) & A.Y. 2014-2015 (Rs.5,39,282/-).\n21. 6. That in absence of a valid satisfaction note recorded clearly justifying the\nmaterial that the same are in the nature of incriminating in nature

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

20 years and therefore covered by the provision of section 35 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) of the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the assessee is the deemed owner of the land and the assessee 's contention that sub-letting this land

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

20. To perform the functions, the Government has its various departments and to facilitate its working, the Government itself may be divided into various Sections. To carry out the commercial activities by the State, the Corporations have been established by enactment of Statutes and the "power to charter Corporations is incidental to or in aid of Governmental functions." Such Corporations

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

20. To perform the functions, the Government has its various departments and to facilitate its working, the Government itself may be divided into various Sections. To carry out the commercial activities by the State, the Corporations have been established by enactment of Statutes and the "power to charter Corporations is incidental to or in aid of Governmental functions." Such Corporations