SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C supported by the case laws was filed. (c) In reply dt. 20.11.2019 (PB 25-28), the blindness certificate of brother, evidence of brokerage paid on sale of land and evidence of expenditure incurred on the agriculture land was filed. (d) In reply dt. 21.11.2019, explanation with respect to investment in house property and evidence of expenditure incurred

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’’. Therefore, in this way, every case of ‘’letting out buildings alongwith other amenities’’ would automatically fall in the income from business and it will not be merely restricted to Software Technology Park only as has been wrongly understood by ld. PCIT. It is important to mention here that the AO after detailed enquiries and verification on completed

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 271(1)© of the Act and furnished inaccurate particulars of income of Rs. 89,832/- by claiming excess interest in housing loan with a motive to pay less tax therefore, I am left with no alternative other than to impose a penalty of Rs. 27,759/-. Working of penalty is as under:- Tax on concealed income or tax sought

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

house property chargeable under section 22. 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 is entitled also to the deduction undersection 80HHor

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, 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. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

173 TTJ 537, wherein it was held as under: “Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54—Purchase of new house vis-a-vis booking advance to builder—Assesse paid Rs. 1 crore as booking advance to a builder for purchase of new residential house after selling his old residential property—Though the legal title in the said property has not passed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. It is further noted that no incriminating material was found during search operations in respect of the construction of house property as is also evident from the assessment order passed u/s 153A wherein there is no mention about any incriminating material found for the relevant assessment year even no mention

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

173 (Kerala) • Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) • Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora (2014) 52 taxmann.com 172 ( Allahabad) • B. Kishore Kumar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-IV(1), Channai (2014) 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) • Principal Commissioner of Income

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

173 taxmann.com 834 (Delhi) Abha Gupta v. Income-tax Officer*\n\nSection 148, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income escaping\nassessment Issue of notice for (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14\nAssessing Officer issued notice under section 148 on basis of information received\nfrom Investigation Wing relating to certain share transactions alleging that sell trades\nexceeded

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

section 54F of the Act. It was submitted that in spite of above submissions, the AO has not acceded to assessee’s contentions and has denied the exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 5. It was further submitted that some of the notable facts were not judiciously considered by the AO and/or were not denied by the AO though having

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

173, Surat Urban Development Authority 174, Jamnagar 10 Bhiwadi Integrated Development Authority vs. CIT(E) Area Development Authority 175, and the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation 176 are rejected. Likewise, the revenue's appeals against Agra Development Trust177; UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad 178; Raebareli Development Authority 179, Rajasthan Housing Board 180; Mangalore Urban Development Authority 181; Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

property in question is a palace. It is also not in dispute that a portion of it is in occupation. The only question which has been raised by learned counsel for the Revenue is that if only a portion of the palace is in occupation, the exemption under clause (19A) of Section 10 would be available only for that part

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then