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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about\nclaim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nChapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non\ndisclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be\nbrought 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\nclaim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nChapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non\ndisclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be\nbrought 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\nclaim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nChapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non\ndisclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be\nbrought 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\nclaim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nChapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non\ndisclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be\nbrought 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\nclaim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under\nChapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non\ndisclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be\nbrought 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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

house property as\nis also evident from the assessment order passed u/s 153A wherein\nthere is no mention about any incriminating material found for the\nrelevant assessment year even no mention in the AO remand report.\n15\nITA NO. 469 & 470/JP/2024\nDCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN\n2.\nSECOND REASON : NO ADDITION SOLELY ON THE BASIS

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

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

house of Smt.\nSunita Shekhawat were incorrectly relied upon. The ld. AR argued that the\nadditions were made without properly appraising the entire material available on\nrecord.\nIt was further submitted that the entries on the basis of which the additions were\nmade reflected loans that the assessee had taken and projections of the loan\namounts which could have been

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

100 as on 1/04/1981. There is enhancement of 9.39 times in 32 years (as on 31.03.1982 and 31.03.2014). Similarly he see the enhancement of indexing value in 8 years (31.03.1982 to 31.03.1990) there is enhancement of 1.72 times (index is at 172). Thus, going in reverse in earlier 8 years (31.03.1982 to 31.03.1974) we may assume decrease of 0.72 times

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

house property, and income from other sources. It has\nbeen submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made\non an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO.\nThe ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has\nconfirmed these additions. Submission made