KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, 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.

10 of 1922 Act as business income – or income from other source u/s 12 of 1922 Act. h) We place the reliance on following decisions: - i) In the case of CIT vs. Neha Builders Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 661) (Gujarat) (Copy at PB Page No. 140-141) held that if the business of the assessee is to construct the property

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is et and the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

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

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

10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle 7, Jaipur on 24/2/2016 and the returned income was accepted. (Copy of order at Paper book page no 14.) Thereafter, the assessee received one notice under section 148 dated 18/7/2017. (Copy at Paper book page no 15). In reply to this notice

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] 18 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT The Commissioner in the impugned show-cause notice thus committed an error in recording that the Assessing Officer had held that the purchases were bogus. This very foundation for issuance of the notice was incorrect. His further observations were merely consequential in nature. In his opinion, when the Assessing Officer

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

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. 24.” Income chargeable under the head “Income from house property” shall be computed after making

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

10) When on the basis of the record it is not disputed that the requirements of further proviso were fulfilled, the assessee was not required to make any deduction at source on the payments made to the sub-contractors. If that be our conclusion, application of section 40(a)(ia) would not arise since, as already noticed, section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

10-11 respectively. The revenue has raised common grounds except quantum of deletion of addition in these appeals as under :- ITA No. 1440/JP/2018 : “ Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. M/s. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

10-11 respectively. The revenue has raised common grounds except quantum of deletion of addition in these appeals as under :- ITA No. 1440/JP/2018 : “ Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. M/s. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

10-11 respectively. The revenue has raised common grounds except quantum of deletion of addition in these appeals as under :- ITA No. 1440/JP/2018 : “ Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. M/s. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

10 Vijay Kumar Vijayvergiya vs. DCIT business by accepting the proposal of the managing director unanimously, it was agreed that work of construction of residential flats and commercial shops on the said property should be taken up immediately on such verbal terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon between the company and assessee in the meeting

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

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

section 80IB (10) from time to time: Supreme Court: Case law Sr. No. PB Reference CIT v Sarkar Builders (2015) 57 taxmann.com 313 16 1. [CLC REF. 1 - 14 ] CIT v Veena Developers (2016) 66 taxmann.com 353 16 2. [CLC REF. 15 - 17 ] High Courts: High Court Sr. No. Case LAW PB Reference CIT v Brahma Associates [2011] 197 taxmann

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

10 of the lease deed are not applicable to assessee since assessee is proprietor and not the society as mentioned in lease deed. iii) Further the Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of urban development and housing department vide notification No. 3(63) 4D/3/2005 dated 05.08.2007 has allowed that the 40% area can be given on rent by owner. iv) Prior permission

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

10 of the lease deed are not applicable to assessee since assessee is proprietor and not the society as mentioned in lease deed. iii) Further the Govt. of Rajasthan, Department of urban development and housing department vide notification No. 3(63) 4D/3/2005 dated 05.08.2007 has allowed that the 40% area can be given on rent by owner. iv) Prior permission

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

22,71,440/-. It is relevant to note that the land sold was in the name of appellant-assessee, while the land purchased was in the name of his son and daughter-in-law. 7. A bare reading of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act does not suggest that assessee would be entitled to get exemption for the land

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

22 and 23 of the Act relevant for the purposes of computation of income chargeable under the head “Income from house property”, it talks about the determination of annual value of the property which is actually let out or expected to be let out. Further, in the context of house or a part of the house which is in occupation