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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

29,26,000/-, Rs. 21,967/-. However, directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the income of house property. 3. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. Ground no. 1 is against confirming the addition of Rs. 14,11,556/- as income from the house property. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated

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. If we compare both the provisions of law, we can easily deduce that Sec. 54 is more assessee friendly as compared to Sec. 54F. The Proviso to Sec. 54F – which prohibit an assessee from claiming deduction – if he owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset

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

10,536/- investment made in new residential house/full value of consideration) 13815295 X 2104875/17000206 Deduction u/s 54EC of the IT Act 1961 5000000 Net long term capital gain 7104758 25 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT Capital gain already shown in ITR 865274 Net long Term Capital gain chargeable to Tax 6239484 After analyzing the above discussion made

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

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

property in question is a palace. It is also not in dispute that a portion of it is in occupation. The only question which has been raised by learned counsel for the Revenue is that if only a portion of the palace is in occupation, the exemption under clause (19A) of Section 10 would be available only for that part

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

29,590/- on account of land cost as exemption u/s. 54 instead of the earlier allowance of Rs.61,54,101/- on account of land and building cost does not appear to be a mistake apparent from the record which falls under the purview of section 154. If at all there is a mistake, it has to be brought

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

29 taxmann.com 15 () 4. Gujrat 14 CIT v Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. [2013] 30 taxmann.com 131 5. Madras 14 CIT v Jogani Constructions Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 9 6. Bombay 15 CIT v CHD Developers Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 249 7 Delhi 15 8. CIT v Ittina Properties (P.) ltd. Karnataka 16 CIT v Happy Home Entreprises (2014) 51 taxmann.com

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

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Findings of ld CIT(E): A perusal of ledger accounts of M/s Saluja Construction in respect of various schools of the trust produced during the course of assessment proceedings, it is revealed that there were opening balances shown in these accounts and the trust has also given advances to this company during

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.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

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.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, grounds no

House Property, then assessee will be entitled for statutory deductions on the same. This ground of appeal was therefore, partly allowed. It may however, be of note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil appeal No. 2812 of 2016 order dated 05.12.2016 in the case of the appellant himself has allowed the appeal & held that: The appellant is allowed

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

property to be used or applied directly for the benefit of a persons referred to U/s 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, nothing contained in Section 11 and 12 shall operate so as to exclude the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the activities of the assessee

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

house property before the date of filing the return of income is not conclusive.” Appellant wishes to mention that post-dated cheques issued for arising from an agreement attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as the balance amount of Rs. 84,27,600/-, paid by issuing post-dated cheques, had become legally payble by the appellant pursuant

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

29, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of 30[one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased 31], or has within a period of three years after that

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above in the case of Surendra Sharma there are a number of decisions of similar nature such