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.

20-11-2017 disposing of the objection raised against the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. The copy of the said M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. order is placed at Paper Book pages 99-104. In this regard the ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act the ld. AR has submitted that initially the assessee used to supply textbooks entirely to the government schools under the scheme of free of cost however, over the time the private educational institutions have taken the significant number of students the assessee has started supplying the textbooks to the private distributors

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

20 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI that would not preclude an assessee from claiming exemption under section 54F, as assessee would not be hit by proviso to section 54F being not an exclusive owner of residential property - Held, yes - Assessee sold a land owned by him and purchased a residential property jointly with his wife - Assessing Officer

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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

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

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

20 & 21/JP/2017. 4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that identical issues were considered by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The ld.CIT (A) has also decided the appeal of the assessee by following the earlier orders

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

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

section 14A(3) of the Act because all the 7 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT payments were in cash and bill amount is less than Rs. 20,000/-.Thus in the absence of the complete details the self made vouchers cannot be verified. He has further contended that all the nature of entire expenditure incurred by the assesse show that

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

10) declaring total income of Rs.509160/- including long term capital gain on sale of house property which was shown at nil after claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Please refer computation of total income which is placed at PB 11-13 The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

20 residential unit in Sep, 2007 when the provision did not exceed the amendment made in the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act was the inclusion of sub clause (e) & (f). It is to be noted where sub clause (e) & (f) has made amendments 80IB(10) of the Act which mentioned that not more than one residential unit