VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

house property income is already offered separately and thereby taxing it again under the head profit and gain of business or profession does not require to be added and that too under the provision of section 154

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house on certain plot 2. which was subsequently dropped and thus balance receivable cannot be taxed (b) assessee is following project completion method of accounting and therefore balance receivable cannot be assessed to tax in the year under consideration and by presuming that (c) the assessee earned on money on sale of plot since average sale rate of plot

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

154 dated 30.06.2020” That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the ground of the assessee. 2. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in not accepting the orders and decision of higher authorities, where as he is ought accept the order of higher authorities without any reservation” That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred

MALTI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

house properties for total amount of Rs. 27, 31,935/- for claiming deduction under section 54F of the IT Act. However, in the quantum appeal the CIT(A) restricted the deduction under section 54F of the IT Act to the amount of Rs. 12,15,000/- and allowed substantial relief to the assessee vide its order under section 250 dated

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 159(2)(b), it is permissible for AO to issue fresh notice u/s 148 against legal representative, provided that same is not barred by limitation; he cannot continue proceedings based on an invalid notice issued u/s 148 to dead assessee—In present case, writ application succeeded— Notice issued by revenue u/s 148 were quashed” Alamelu Veerappan

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

154 r.w.s.250 was passed on 13.12.2024,\nclarifying the deduction amount.\nc) The assessee, in good faith, pursued the matter through grievance redressal\nmechanisms and rectification applications before approaching the Hon'ble\nITAT. As a result, the time elapsed in exhausting the available legal remedies.\n4\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\nd) The delay

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

house under section 54 or 54F is to be considered till the date of filing return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai [2020] 118 taxmann.com 80/273 Taxman 146 (Mad.). 2. Dr. Kushagra Kataria v. Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 359/174

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house properties situated in India and Income from business. For the relevant 3 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. previous year, assessee was a resident in India, in accordance with section 6 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, in accordance with section 5 read with section 4 and 6, assessee offered entire income earned by him, whether in India or outside India

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

154 to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 2769789/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 309/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

154 to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of exempt income of Rs. 2769789/- in view of the ITAT decision in assessee’s case in ITA No. 309/JP/2018 wherein the Hon’ble ITAT relying upon and following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT, New Delhi [402 ITR 640] directed

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

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

house property chargeable under section 22. 17 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co-operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

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)

property in question was purchased at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further

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)

property in question was purchased at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

property in question was purchased at higher price than purchase consideration mentioned in the registered deed, which is not permissible in law. Section 69B is not applicable if there is no tangible evidence of understatement of purchase consideration. Reference is made to CIT vs. Dinesh Jain 352 ITR 629; CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595. 26. It is further

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property, remuneration from partnership firm, short term capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring