DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

house property Rs. 1,00,37,910 and deduction u/s 54F Rs. 94,39,201 and LTCG income at Rs. Nil and total income of Rs 18,21,680/- 5 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI (Copy at Paper book page no 10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and assessment was framed vide order dated 31.03.2015. While framing the assessment, the AO made disallowance of Rs. 21,967/- while invoking all provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, assessed the income from house property

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 to half value of investment made in one residential house property. As sale consideration reported in the registered sale deeds executed for purchase of immovable properties situated at flat No. 702, Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad is more than the same consideration reported in sale deed executed for purchase of flat

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

143(3) to assess the income from house property in respect of the closing stock in the said commercial complex in view of the finding of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. 354 ITR 180 (Del.). The AO completed the reassessments under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

143(3) to assess the income from house property in respect of the closing stock in the said commercial complex in view of the finding of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. 354 ITR 180 (Del.). The AO completed the reassessments under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

143(3) to assess the income from house property in respect of the closing stock in the said commercial complex in view of the finding of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. 354 ITR 180 (Del.). The AO completed the reassessments under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(3). Subsequently the AO has proposed to assess the income being notional rent in respect of the closing stock in the commercial complex, namely, Silver Square. The said space which was to be assessed as Income from House Property

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

143(3) nor in order u/s. 154. The appellant has claimed in the statement of facts that he sold his share in residential house property and invested the sale proceeds in new residential house property. It has been contended that the complete details of land purchased and construction made were submitted during assessment proceeding and checked by the A.O. Subsequently

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

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143

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

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143

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

house property and after claiming deduction under u/s80C at Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 had been completed under section 143

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

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 24(b) as explained above. 2.7.3 The observation of the ld. AO that regular EMI of Rs. 49,743/- is being paid from the month of April, 2008 onwards can have no adverse bearing on the claim of the assessee. 2.7.4 The ld. AO’s allegation that appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 36,000/- for the whole

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) 147 of the Act, merely on the technical ground that the investment was made by the appellant in the purchase of new residential house property, in the name of his wife Smt. Garima Singh who herself is a separate assessee and having separate source of income; and thus denied the benefit of section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 131 (Guj.) In the reasons recorded by Ld. A.O. there is no whisper that “due to failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment” the income has escaped assessment and, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 is wrong

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Hajyawala,\nSanganer, Jaipur\nVs.\nITO,\nWard 7(2),\nJaipur\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BACPC4828D\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, CA\nराजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing\n: 25/06/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 09/07/2025\nआदेश

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

house property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri