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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, grounds no

House Property, then assessee will be entitled for statutory deductions on the same. This ground of appeal was therefore, partly allowed. It may however, be of note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Civil appeal No. 2812 of 2016 order dated 05.12.2016 in the case of the appellant himself has allowed the appeal & held that: The appellant is allowed

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

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

140 and Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered in the case of Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. ACIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 114 (SC) and many other judgments. The AO has stated that the assessee has failed to produce any evidence to show that it is in curredany expenditure wholly and exclusively to earn interest income from Cooperative Ban, Commercial Bank

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

140,\nwherein it was held that Section 80P(2) (d) deduction is not eligible to co-operative\nsocieties on interest income earned from investments with another co-operative bank/\nnationalised bank. The relevant observations are as follows:-\n\"23. Thus, the aforesaid judgments supports the view taken by this Court that character\nof income depends upon the nature of activity

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house.” 6. To support the arguments so raised the ld. AR of the assessee and has relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:- 10 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO S. No. Particulars Pg. No. 1. Copy of submission filed before Ld. CIT(A) 1-4 2. Copy of Index of paper book filed before

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

140 ] he took a view that the interest earned by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 8,94,996/- was not in accordance with the provision of section 80P of the Act and thereby the claim to that extent was disallowed. When the matter taken up before the ld. CIT(A) he has given the relief

SHRI MAHENDRA SINGH MEEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

140/- which includes income from house property, business and other sources. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the assessee has shown interest income as well as interest payment. From the details, the AO noted that the assessee has received interest income at the maximum rate of 18% whereas in one of the payments of interest the assessee

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

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

140 lacs. The expenses incurred on registration was Rs. 2,84,560/- and Rs. 20 lacs was further incurred on construction as stated in the statements recorded during search. Thus the total cost of the house as on date comes to Rs. 1,62,84,560/-. 3. The long term capital gain on sale of property

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

SHRI ARUN KALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTARAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed

house property and income from other sources. Though, there was a search in case of Moti Sons group on 31/10/2012, however, there was no incriminating material either found or seized disclosing any undisclosed income of the assessee as a result of search and seizure action. The assessee was covered by the search carried

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and Section 13 shall apply accordingly. 12. Section 13, a non obstante clause provides that the provisions of Section 11 or Section 12 shall not operate as to exclude from total income of the previous years of the person in respect of various income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

property in question is a palace. It is also not in dispute that a portion of it is in occupation. The only question which has been raised by learned counsel for the Revenue is that if only a portion of the palace is in occupation, the exemption under clause (19A) of Section 10 would be available only for that part

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

House vs. ITO (1995) 53TTJ (Coch-Trib) 293, it is held that there is a material difference on the question of onus between section 68 and section 69. If the case falls u/s 68 of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to adduce evidence that the credits in the accounts are genuine. In a case under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

House vs. ITO (1995) 53TTJ (Coch-Trib) 293, it is held that there is a material difference on the question of onus between section 68 and section 69. If the case falls u/s 68 of the Act, the onus is on the assessee to adduce evidence that the credits in the accounts are genuine. In a case under section