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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) vide order dated 1st Aug, 2019. Returned Income was accepted. XI. Chronology of events is as under: Particulars Date A.Y. PB 21st Purchase of Residential House Property Dec, 2016- 33-65 2015 17 15th Execution of Memorandum of Understanding as Jan, 2016- 6-7 per which assessee’s share was 50% 2016 17 14th Sale of Plot

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 148, showing salary income accordingly. The AO did not take cognizance of this ITR. The assessee had given the bifurcation of salary received from the two companies. As an evidence, he enclosed copy of Form-16 and annexures to Form-16 issued by the Employer. But the AO ignored these evidences which were placed on record

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F being making investment in residential house property and holding the same for atleast 3 years were fulfilled. 8 I.T.(I.T.)A. No. 64/JP/2021 Parvinder Kaur v. PCIT A11.Ld. PCIT has erred in placing reliance on the decisions which are as under: a. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs K Ramachandra

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- 9 Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur. “ Thereafter, the case was transferred to the office of the undersigned from

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

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

SHRI VIKAS SONGARA,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Him On Merit By Simply Stating That Assessee Has 2 Sh. Vikas Songara, Ajmer Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ajmer

109/- Less:- Deduction u/s 54F on investment in Rs.5,29,798/- house property at Rs.15,74,060/- Capital Gain Rs.11,56,31 5. The AO however rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 stating that the above said contentions of the assessee have been duly considered but not found acceptable. The assessee has claimed a deduction which

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since, issue raised by assessee in this case has already been decided in favour of assessee Pr. CIT(A) has exceeded jurisdiction u/s 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of assessment framed

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property has been properly shown in the\nreturn of income for the year under consideration.\nii. As it has already been stated in Paral as above that assessee earned\nrental income and interest income, therefore not liable for maintain any\ncash book and bank book. Hence such cash book and bank book is not\navailable with the assessee.\niii

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

PRABHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.11.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 4,12,920/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,48,870/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was processed under Smt. Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur

PRABHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -6 , JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Appeal Hearing.

house property, capital gains and other sources. She e-filed her return of income on 27.11.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 4,12,920/- claiming exempt Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 21,48,870/- under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The return was processed under Smt. Prabha Agarwal, Jaipur

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are 20 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

property’ as ‘income from business’; (iii) Allowing deduction of Rs. 49,84,283/- to the assessee being deduction made out of payments made to contractors since the assessee is following cash system of accounting; (iv) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1087.86 lakhs to the assessee by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

property’ as ‘income from business’; (iii) Allowing deduction of Rs. 49,84,283/- to the assessee being deduction made out of payments made to contractors since the assessee is following cash system of accounting; (iv) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1087.86 lakhs to the assessee by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

property’ as ‘income from business’; (iii) Allowing deduction of Rs. 49,84,283/- to the assessee being deduction made out of payments made to contractors since the assessee is following cash system of accounting; (iv) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1087.86 lakhs to the assessee by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee