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

House property at Rs 70,000/-, which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 99,903/-. The assessee has declared net profit at Rs. 9,133/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 on total turnover of Rs. 1,14,067/-/ Besides, the assessee has declared interest income at Rs. 3,69,437/- under the head income from other

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

133 house was not completed within the TTJ 0064 (Chandigarh) prescribed period. It was held that section 54F does not prescribe that the residential house should be completed within the prescribed period and benefit under s. 54F was allowed. It was held that thrust was on investment and not on completion. 3. Satish Chandra Gupta The facts of this case

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000/-, which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000/- which lead to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the assessee failed to disclose interest income of Rs 1,21,350/- in the original return, which lead to concealing particulars of income. Had the Revenue not initiated any action under section 133

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house within the prescribed period as per section 54 of the Act, then if there is a delay in the actual possession to be handed over to the assessee and the said delay is not attributable to the assessee then having regard to the satisfaction of the substantial and primary condition of investment the deduction under section 54 cannot

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

133(6) by the Tehsildar of Kotkasim, Alwar submitted to the AO. Section 2(14) clause (iii) states that an agricultural land which is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit is not to be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, as the agricultural land under consideration is situated beyond 8 kms of the municipal limit

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

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

house property which is again not disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under s. 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

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

VIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Ground As Under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner Has Not Accorded Proper Satisfaction In Terms Of Section 151 For Reopening Of Assessment U/ 148.” 3. Since, The Additional Ground Is Legal In Nature & Was Raised In Respect Of The Approval Granted By The Pr. Cit U/S 151 Of The Act

house and only extension and renovation could have taken place and cannot be considered as new construction. 3. The appellant craves the right to add, delete or alter any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 2. The assessee has also raised additional ground as under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House property, Business and Other sources. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings ld.AO found that assessee has shown receipt of loan from Smt. Suman Agarwal and Smt. Laxmi Agarwal. To verify the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Enquiry was conducted u/s 133(6) of the Act. 3.2 In the case of depositor Smt. Laxmi

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration.\nEquating the income

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C)(vi) has been withdrawn and the submission of the assessee in that regard: 3.1 Rent paid for the property 219/5, Sardarpura, Udaipur & property 12/493, Indira Nagar, Lucknow Findings of the ld CIT(E): 4 Scholars Education Trust of India Vs. CIT (E),Jaipur From the Memorandum of the Trust, submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, vide

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320 1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000 40 ITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018 ITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024 2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration. Equating

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee