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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house in the name of his wife namely, Smt Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as required u/s 54F of the Act. The appellant filed his return of income for the A.Y.2011-12, in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26/04/2018 declaring total income at Rs.1,65,540/-. Exemption u/s 54F of the Act was claimed

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

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

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

SHRI AVNISH BANSAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted

house property amounting to Rs 41,60,100 which was claimed under section 54 of the Act. The computation so filed

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 139(4) of the IT Act. It was also submitted that the intention of the assessee was to construct residential house and accordingly the assessee had made investment of Rs. 23,89,100/- whereas he has received actual sale consideration of Rs. 11,60,000/- on transfer of the property

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 69 of the Act. With the Following remarks, the income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from salary ( as declared) Rs. 24,00,000/- Income from House property (as declared) Rs. 10,81,941/- Income from business (after deduction of Rs. Nill surrendered income) Income from capital gain Short Term

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

100 house 3]It is submitted that the provision of section 50C has not applicable in the case of the assessee as entire actual sale consideration received by the assessee was invested in the construction of new house. The meaning of full value of consideration as referred to in Explanation to s. 54F(1) is not governed by the meaning

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house to be in the exclusive name of the assessee. The assessee must be a legal owner of the new property. Simply because name of a child, son here, is added in the sale deed as a joint owner of the new asset, for the purposes of convenience, it would not disentitle the assessee from claiming full exemption claim under

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house. A copy of the\ndeed, as submitted to the office of the Income Tax Officer, Bundi, in response to the\naudit objection, is enclosed herewith for ready reference [PBP: 30 to 36].\n1.8.\nIn view of the above facts, legal provisions, and judicial precedents, it is humbly\nsubmitted that the appellant has fully complied with the conditions laid down

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

property to "B" for a consideration of RS. 100 crore and receive only a consideration of 1.00 crore and it is mentioned in the transfer instrument that balance of consideration would he paid after 20 years then no tax can be levied on such balance consideration of Rs. 99.00 crore which has not been received as per the contention

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

property by the Essorpe Holdings Pvt. Ltd., to an extent of 5.075 acres of land for the assessment year 2009-10, directing the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act and compute the capital gains upto to the date of conversion into stock in trade, and thereafter on actual sale of the land

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

house property chargeable under section 22. 17 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co-operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee