PRAMOD BANSAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 224/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Pramod Bansal Enterprises (P) Ltd The Acit Vs. 2-Ka-14, Vigyan Nagar Circle-1 Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcp 7265 Q Vihykfkhz@ Appellant Izr;Fkhz@ Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls @Assessee By :Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Rai, Dcit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /10/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16-01-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Kota For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal. ‘’1. That The Ao Has Grossly Erred On Law & Facts In Considering The Income At The Notional & Estimated Of Rent Of House No. 125, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota Rs. 4,04,215/- Whereas The House Was Vacant, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao. That After Allowing Deduction U/S 24(1) The Addition Is Made For Rs. 2,82,950/-.

125, Mahaveer Nagar-1, Kota as it is not given on rent but in order to prevent deterioration and destruction of property 3 M/s. Pramod Bansal Enterprises (P)Ltd vs ACIT , Circle – 1, Kota Shri V.K. Bansal has allowed his staff i.e. driver and security guard /helper to stay there as a make shift arrangement to protect the property

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

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.”

house property. (iii) Nipun Mehtotra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Banglore Tribunal) 113 TTJ 0223 Perusal of sub-s. (4) of s. 54 shows that the assessee has to utilize the amount for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139. There is no mention

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

housing construction. Therefore, the business activity as builder is not found to be as per objects of the trust. Hence, the section 11(4A) is clearly found to be applicable on the facts of the case. Since, the appellant is not eligible for benefit of section 11 as discussed earlier, the argument of the appellant that section

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

125/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 80,26,665/- made by the AO under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.” 5. The representatives of the respective party have adopted the same argument as made in ITA No. 416/JP/2016. The only effective ground in revenue’s appeal is against restricting

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

125/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 80,26,665/- made by the AO under the provisions of section 14A of the I.T. Act r.w. Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.” 5. The representatives of the respective party have adopted the same argument as made in ITA No. 416/JP/2016. The only effective ground in revenue’s appeal is against restricting

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

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 of the Act, the assessee filed his return

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

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 of the Act, the assessee filed his return

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

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 of the Act, the assessee filed his return

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

house property chargeable under section 22.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumer co-operative society\nmeans a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal\ncorporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or\ncantoriment\n10\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

House ITA No. 613/2010 decided by Delhi High Court on 09.04.2010 In the facts of above case cash of Rs.24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that nexus of such deposit was not establish with any source of income. The assessee claimed that it was duly recorded in the books

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 54 and have not paid any tax on this alleged on money receipt. Reason by ld. CIT(A) iv. In respect of purchase of Plot No. D-112 from M/s Rawat Constructions Private Limited, ld. CIT(A) admitted (at page 24) that no evidence suggesting on money payment with regard to this property were found but upheld the order

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

house and purchase of other assets as well as advances in the absence of the real transactions do not constitute the undisclosed income of the assessee as defined in the explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271AAB in respect of the said amount is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.” Thus

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

house and purchase of other assets as well as advances in the absence of the real transactions do not constitute the undisclosed income of the assessee as defined in the explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271AAB in respect of the said amount is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.” Thus

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered loss, same was not declared in return of income. The case of the assessee