SHRI MOHAMED MOHTRAM FAROOQUI,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

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

house property”/ “income from other sources”. All these facts shows that the cash of Rs. 5,92,340/- offered in the return is just to avoid the litigation which is neither a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 13. It was further submitted that otherwise also, much importance cannot be attached to the manner in which

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,65,623/-, there was no evidence to prove that entries recorded in documents found during course of search was over and above income declared by Assessee as undisclosed income—Assessee's Appeal allowed—Cross-appeal by revenue dismissed. (iii) It is submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the Decision of the Hon'ble Bench

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources, the provisions of section 32 are not applicable. Provisions of section 32, i.e., deprecation are, therefore, applicable in case of income earned under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

13. On the date of notification, the impugned land was about more than 15 kms from the municipal limits of Jaipur towards Tonk Road in Tehsil -Sanganer Under this bonafide belief, the assessee had claimed the profit from the transaction of the impugned property to be exempt from tax. 3.2 The assessee having shown the transaction

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property though the same is subject to\napproval of Rajasthan Housing Board and signing of the final conveyance deed.\nAccordingly, in light of above discussions and in the entirety of facts and circumstances\nof the case, the payment to Rajasthan Housing Board is not in contravention of section\n11(5) r/w section 13(1)(c

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

house. Both, such undisclosed\nincome and such undisclosed asset/house construction, are the undisclosed\nincome of the appellant as per the section 271AAB of the Act.\nReliance is also placed up on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Benchs-B,\nJaipur order in the case of Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT Central Circle-3,\nJaipur in ITA No. 992/JP/2017

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

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)

13,930/- the said claim was denied to the assessee because the ITR was required to be filed on or before 15.03.2022 as per provision of section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) the said claim was also denied to the assessee on the following finding given

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

c) as well as 13(1)(d) of the Act and held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the Hon’ble tribunal held that the AO denied the exemption u/s 11 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High 23 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

13 and in ITA No. 172/JP/2017 for AY 11-12 in case of the assessee held that\non the advance received from the customers where plot buyers agreement has\nbeen executed, revenue to the extent of work completed needs to be\nrecognized. Accordingly the AO worked out the gross profit on advances\nreceived from customers as under:-\nParticulars\nAmount

DISHA DELPHI EDUCATION SOCIETY C/O- KALANI & CO. CA, 5TH FLOOR, KILESTONE BUILDING GANDHINAGAR TURN, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 626/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :............ Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Vs. Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 313/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2016-17 Disha Delphi Education Society, Cuke Pr.Cit (Central), Vs. 334, Asiad Village, Hauz Khas, Jaipur. New Delhi-110049. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 8461 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ajay Chandra (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Common Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 & 29/10/2020 For The A.Y. 2016-17 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 2

c) itself provides that trust can pay any amount to specified person out of its resources for services rendered by that person provided that the amount paid is not in excess of what may be reasonably paid for such services. Hence, payment of interest 09% to Maheshwari brothers is not unreasonable and thus, there is no violation of section 13