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 143(3) for both the years and made the additions on account of income from house property by determining the annual letting value of the closing stock being 25,810 sq. ft. of constructed area @ Rs. 24/- per sq. ft. for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 19,105 sq. ft. of constructed area

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

3. That the A.O has treated this receipt as income from business and not from the house property. 4. That the appellant has cited the provision of section 22 r.w.s 27(iiib) and to be read with section 269UA(f) of the Act to justify its claim for income to be assessed as income from house property. 5.4 I have

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

143(3) and an order was passed in which the claim of the assessee was disallowed u/s 54F vide order dated 28.12.2018. 9. Provisions of section 54 and 54F, as applicable in the relevant assessment year, are reproduced below for the ease of discussions: Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1)] 40[41[Subject

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

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 in allowing deduction under section property 154 of Rs.2429590/- only instead of actual expenses incurred of Rs.6154101/- thereby making addition of Rs.3724511/- Thus, from above it is clear that the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the validity of the rectification proceedings on the ground that such a rectification

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 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the proceeds 3 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT invested in "a house" was to be made exempt and without prejudice u/s 54 "one residential house" was to be made exempt fully (i.e. even with investment in name of self and spouse - Ref: Laxmi Narayan

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

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

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

M/S. DISHA DELPHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL, 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

housing the college, hostel and to provide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Karnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying

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

housing the college, hostel and to provide other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Karnataka and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine. Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) of the Act was completed at an income Rs. 4,08,62,560/- on 29.03.2016 by making an addition of Rs. 3,51,448/- on account of cash found at the residence of the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs 3,51,448/- vide his order

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Housing Corporation Ltd (supra) held that assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IB(10) from the net profit for the purpose of computing “Book Profit” u/s 115JB of the Act. Chheda Electricals and Electronics (P.) Ltd -vs.- DCIT (ITA NOs. 400 & 668/Pune/2018 dated 04-05-2022) In the said case, the assessee was claiming deduction u/s 80IC

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

143(2) for the aforesaid assessment years had already elapsed. In search assessment, any undisclosed income, which can 37 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur ultimately be added, is only to the extent of any unrecorded assets/material found or any incrementing documents found as representing undisclosed income earned. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

143(2) for the aforesaid assessment years had already elapsed. In search assessment, any undisclosed income, which can 37 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur ultimately be added, is only to the extent of any unrecorded assets/material found or any incrementing documents found as representing undisclosed income earned. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case

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

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). SUBMISSIONS 1. Ld. PCIT has not disputed the following points: 1.1. The assessee sold a long term capital asset which was not in the nature of residential house property. 1.2. The assessee made investment, within stipulated time, in a residential house property. 1.3. The assessee was fulfilling all the conditions as contained in section 54F. 1.4. The assessee

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

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find