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

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

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

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 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

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

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

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

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.

38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest in the State Government Similarly section 39(2) which deals with the distribution of assets in case of liquidation, brings out the same feature: It has been urged before by the Advocate

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.

38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest in the State Government Similarly section 39(2) which deals with the distribution of assets in case of liquidation, brings out the same feature: It has been urged before by the Advocate

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

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

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

property” as one of the modes of investment of funds, so there is no violation of section 11(5) of the Act. Further vide reply dated 10.08.2015 submitted as under: “The above party has informed us the final hearing of Gutab Kothari V/s State has completed and they are waiting for decision, however we have informed them that either they