ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38

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.”

property of the Board or for any other purpose conducive to the interest of the Board out of its receipts, howsoever from donations, loans, advance, sale of books or otherwise; (17) To invest in such securities as the Board may determine from time to time and to deal with the funds of the Board; (18) To draw, make, accept, endorse

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.

38,914.00 2017-18 2018-19 1470.00 85,00,000 32,01,507.00 2020-21 2021-22 300.00 24,25,000 7,48,836.00 Total 24,924.50 11,07,57,000 1,90,00,795.60 M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Since the provisions “Income from House Property” are not applicable on the properties lying as stock in trade

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.

38,914.00 2017-18 2018-19 1470.00 85,00,000 32,01,507.00 2020-21 2021-22 300.00 24,25,000 7,48,836.00 Total 24,924.50 11,07,57,000 1,90,00,795.60 M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Since the provisions “Income from House Property” are not applicable on the properties lying as stock in trade

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

38,675) which clearly shows that the assessee was having two houses. The assessee did not mention any remarks against House-2 that this is a vacant plot and this vacant plot is being used as house garden. In absence of any remark of the assessee regarding House No-2, how the AO could believe that this is a vacant

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

38 of 1959), a corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), or under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 (40 of 1980), or any other bank being a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank

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

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business, capital gain and other\nsources (APB 2 – 3). It is seen that assessee has claimed long term capital\ngain of Rs.1,37,83,051/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of I.T. Act. After filing the\nreturn (APB 1), the case was reopened u/s 148 / 147 and while doing so\nthe ld. AO has observed at page

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property.\nAlthough not engaged in regular share trading, the assessee has invested\nin shares of companies.\nii.\nThe assessee claimed a long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption under\nSection 10(38) for the sale of shares of Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd.\nThe gain claimed was 27,87,561/-.\niii.\nDetails provided indicate that the assessee purchased shares

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 5,04,310/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,39,336/- under section 10(38

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 5,04,310/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,39,336/- under section 10(38

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

38 (Del), allowed the exemption u/s 54F of the Act observing that it would be treated as the property was purchased by purchased in the joint names, would not make any difference. Moreover, section 54F mandates that the house should by purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

house property and income from other sources respectively.During the year, the assessee had shown an exempt income under the head capital gain (STT) u/s. 10(38) amounting to Rs. 5,79,283/- from the sale of shares of M/s. Twenty First Century India Ltd., one of the paper companies floated by Shri Anil Kumar Khemka-operator. As established

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

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 9. Bombay 16 ITAT : Sr. No. Case Law Name

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

House (Caselaws paper Book Pages 144-236) where the Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT after considering all the aspects of “preponderance of human probabilities” and other issues has held that: “46. ……It is quite a trite law that suspicion how so ever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence on record