GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Since, the deduction is allowable for construction of the house property during the period of 3 years from the date of transfer of the capital asset, therefore, the investment made in construction of the house after the date of transfer i.e. 30.05.2012 has been claimed by the assessee and the same

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

house property, but the assessee has every right to challenge proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. Now it is well-settled principle by different judicial pronouncements that there cannot be any 'estoppel' against the statutory provisions. Admittedly, in this case, the mandate of section 147 is not fulfilled for the reasons that the Assessing

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

house property, but the assessee has every right to challenge proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act. Now it is well-settled principle by different judicial pronouncements that there cannot be any 'estoppel' against the statutory provisions. Admittedly, in this case, the mandate of section 147 is not fulfilled for the reasons that the Assessing

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the Id. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has 9 Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has grossly erred in denying the set-off claim of assessee of house property

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house loan of Rs. 1,43,619/-." [Emphasis Supplied] 1. Accordingly, the provisions of section 115BBE were not invoked. Returned Income was accepted and resultantly no demand was raised. 2. The conscious call, of not assessing surrendered income as per the provisions of section 69/69A/698 and, accordingly, not applying the provisions of section 115BBE, is evident from the fact that

SHRI VIKAS SONGARA,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Him On Merit By Simply Stating That Assessee Has 2 Sh. Vikas Songara, Ajmer Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ajmer

house property u/s 54F is Rs.15,74,060/- as against Rs.11,70,890/- considered by the AO. Both these facts are not denied by the lower authorities. Thus, when the entire facts are narrated in the application u/s 154, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee only for the reason that assessee

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

PARMINDER KAUR BEDI,PUNJAB vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

property. The proceedings under section 147/148 were dropped by the AO on 09.03.2010 when the assessee explained in reply to the said notice that the assessee has invested the sale proceeds in purchase of residential plot and construction of house and consequently claimed deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. The AO was satisfied with the said explanation

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

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1052/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Rajendra Agarwal The Ito Vs. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar Ward- 7(1) Jaipur 302 039 Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aatpa 7184 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

Section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the objection of the assessee and upheld the order of the AO passed u/s 154 of the Act. 2. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold the plot bearing No. B-277, Vigyan Nagar,Jaipur for a sale

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

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

house property, profession, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed his return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 62,25,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 04.09.2014, which was served upon the assessee. 4. The AO arrived the findings that the assessed

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted