NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property the stamp duty value noted at Rs. 2,28,76,000/-. Since, the\nassessee has already paid consideration while booking the flat the\nsubsequent increase in the stamp duty amount does not attract the\nprovision of section 56(2) of the Act as contended by the assessee before\nthe Id. AO. The Id. AO noted that in the case

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

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

143(2) was issued on\n26/09/2019 by the ITO, Ward 4(4). Jaipur.\nSubsequently, the case was centralized with ACIT, Central\nCircle-1, Jaipur based on an order u/s 127 of the Act vide order\ndated 07.01.2021 of Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur. Statutory notice as required\nunder section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07/02/2021 along\nwith questionnaire

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

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

143(2)\nwas issued on 24.08.2011. Ld. AO noted that the details in response to\nquery letter/order sheet notings have been filed which was placed on\nrecord by him. Books of account were produced during the course of\nproceedings which have been examined on test check basis with reference\nto the details filed as noted

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 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part

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 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on Nil income dated 31.12.2007. The ITO reopened the assessment vide notice u/s 148 dated 20.12.2011 and completed the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on Nil income dated 31.12.2007. The ITO reopened the assessment vide notice u/s 148 dated 20.12.2011 and completed the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 on Nil income dated 31.12.2007. The ITO reopened the assessment vide notice u/s 148 dated 20.12.2011 and completed the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(2) of the Act was issued on 6-09-2013 which was served upon the assesse. A Notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issue to the assesee on 03-01-2014 for which the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and details required as per query were placed on 3 ITA 197/JP/2022

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 determining the assessed income at Rs. 2,87,21,880/- against the returned income of Rs. 15,62,770/-. 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee not finding any favour from the first appellate authority on merits

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

property. From the balance sheet, how the learned AO could gather the information that both the houses shown in balance sheet were residential houses. How the learned AO ruled out the other two possibilities to form a belief that on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was the owner of two residential houses. 24 DCIT, CIRCLE

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)

2. Income from House Property During the course of assessment proceedings, a detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 20-11-2020 seeking pin pointed queries about the nature of business activities as well as verification of such receipts. The said notice was previously issued by the AO to verify the issue in question

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property, income from capital Gain and\nincome from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the\nassessee is available on paper book page No...1.\nSubsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT\n(Inv) wing-2 Jaipur. In the matter detailed statements of husband of the\nassessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

2. That the appellant has given this land on rent to M/s L & T and earned rental income of Rs.1,06,94,680/-. The appellant has declared these receipts as income from house property and claimed deduction u/s 24 of the Act. 3. That the A.O has treated this receipt as income from business and not from the house property

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

housing, road infrastructure, water suooly, sewage, treatment, supply of food grains, medicines, etc., with or without regulatory powers, mere fact that some surolus or gain is derived would not disentitle them from benefit of section 10(46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

housing, road infrastructure, water suooly, sewage, treatment, supply of food grains, medicines, etc., with or without regulatory powers, mere fact that some surolus or gain is derived would not disentitle them from benefit of section 10(46) Held, yes Whether however, amounts which are significantly higher than recovery of costs, have to be treated as receipts from trade, commerce

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 property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, the claim of exemption for commercial property investments like shop does not come under the purview of section 54. There has to be investment in agricultural land within two 6 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO years after the date of such