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 within the stipulated time irrespective of any number of residential houses owned by him. As per facts of this case, the assesseee has fully complied with all the conditions of Section 54 of the Act, therefore, he is entitled to claim a deduction u/s 54 of the 35 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI

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

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

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

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

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n22,25,471\nTOTAL\n57,42,791\nThe action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 57,42,791.\nThe assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter

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 on 26.7.2012, which is prior to the date of furnishing of the return of income of the instant year. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no requirement to comply with the provisions of section 54(2) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 17

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

17(3)(4) Vs M/s Sugarchem Kahamalaya ITA No. 2071/Mum/2016 Therefore in view of several judgments which have gone into this aspects, it is my considered view that provision of section 194C(6) & 194C(7) are independent of each other and when conditions as mentioned in Section 194C(6) have been satisfied then no deduction of tax u/s 194C

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

section 139 of the Act. According to ld. AR of the assessee, the investment was made before of 31.03.2009 i.e. the time limit 17 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) provided u/s 139(4), the claim of the assessee u/s 54F was rightly allowed by the Id. CIT(A)”. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur also

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\n\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\n\nTotal\n58,17,320\n\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n\n10. The appellant craves his rights

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n\n8,17,320\n\nIncome from Other Sources\n\n23,00,000\n\nTotal\n\n58,17,320\n\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of\nthe case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n\n10. The appellant craves

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

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

housing loan has been taken on property 16, Telephone Colony, Jaipur which is owned by his wife Smt Laxmi Bhati. Moreover the property 17, Kalyan Colony, Jaipur also belongs to his wife Srnt Laxmi Bhati. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the appellant had wrongly taken deduction u/s 24(b) and the AO had correctly disallowed the same. Hence