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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

property at Rs. 1,85,150/-, on account of rent of Rs. 2,64,500/- received from letting out of part of unsold portion of project Rama’s Janak Vihar, Banipark, Jaipur. The Assessing Officer has applied ratio lay down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ansal Housing Finance

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

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which

NIRMAL KUMAR DUGAR , JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

house property. Yet another addition of Rs. 1,04,155/-was made by way of income from other sources. 3. Assessing Officer made the above said two additions after arriving at the conclusion that the assessee was engaged in shares and securities transactions, speculative in nature, of the value of Rs. 18,39,385/-in view of provisions of section

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

SHRI MADAN LAL SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.” 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Specific Adjudication As The Assessee Has Not Advanced Any Argument As To How The Order Passed By The Ao As Well As The Impugned Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law.

house is being made, the benefit of deduction U/s 54 is allowable to the assessee. The conditions prescribed U/s 54 of the Act are satisfied in the present case therefore, the benefit of the said section cannot be denied to the assessee. He has referred to the map of the property in question which are also annexed to the sale

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since, issue raised by assessee in this case has already been decided in favour of assessee Pr. CIT(A) has exceeded jurisdiction u/s 263 by directing AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of assessment framed

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property has been properly shown in the\nreturn of income for the year under consideration.\nii. As it has already been stated in Paral as above that assessee earned\nrental income and interest income, therefore not liable for maintain any\ncash book and bank book. Hence such cash book and bank book is not\navailable with the assessee.\niii

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Property sold (1/2 share). The reason granted by A.O. for such dis-allowance is “In absence of any supporting document / Evidences claim of “COST OF IMPROVEMENT” Rs 489159 is disallowed”. B. Whereas the Assessee vide reply to notice u/sec 142(1) of Act date 20.07.2023 has filed complete Details/Proof for such claim. Again on 23.08.2023 such Details/Evidence were E-Filed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house of Rs. 16,29,600/-. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.” Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer 2. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that the Assessing officer issued a show cause dated 12.03.2015 u/s 154 read with section 155 stating that while giving effect to the order

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

155/-. This deduction was revised in assessment proceeding to Rs.1,41,53,488/- but restricted to Rs.1,08,11,680/- i.e. to the extent of available profit. 4. The AO disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions prescribed u/s 80- IB(10):- (i) As per section

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year for scientific research related

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

section 54 and have not paid any tax on this alleged on money receipt. Reason by ld. CIT(A) iv. In respect of purchase of Plot No. D-112 from M/s Rawat Constructions Private Limited, ld. CIT(A) admitted (at page 24) that no evidence suggesting on money payment with regard to this property were found but upheld the order

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

DCIT, CC-1, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG(DEREWALA), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

house property, capital gains and interest from the respective parties during the year under consideration and original return for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31-01-2015 at Rs. 6,25,35,780/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out on 4-11-2016 at the various premises

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

section 153A and \nsubmit that the same should have been done u/s.153C of the Act. That \nissue has already been discussed at length by the ld. CIT(A) while dealing \nwith the appeal of the assessee. Records reveal that during the search at \nthe premises of the assessee Exhibit 08 was found and at page 6 the \nalleged transaction being

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed