VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , 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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

19 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT known sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act empowers the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceeding and revise the same if he considers that the order passed therein by the Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 40A(3) of the Act is hereby held to be justified and hence sustained.” 18 Shri Radhey Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 5.3 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the fact of the case. The assessee has failed to demonstrate that the payments made to the Jaipur Vidhyut Nigam falls under the category of exemption as provided under Rule

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

section also. 19 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI 3. It is submitted that on the date of transfer of original asset the assessee was owning only one Residential House, other than the new asset, at plot no. 161, Indira Colony, Bank Park Jaipur, which is shown as House in Schedule I of fixed assets

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house in allowing deduction under section property 154 of Rs.2429590/- only instead of actual expenses incurred of Rs.6154101/- thereby making addition of Rs.3724511/- Thus, from above it is clear that the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the validity of the rectification proceedings on the ground that such a rectification

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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 54F do not stipulate anywhere that the house property should be purchased or constructed by the assesee in his own name. The ld. AR as contended that there is no dispute that the assessee has construacted the house at C-105 Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur within a period of 2 years from the date of transfer of long

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

19,46,8961-. The Ld. AO has made the addition as under: Income declared by assessee: 4608856.00 Add: Addition due to disallowing standard deduction u/s 24: 3335135.00 Add: Addition in trading results: 24002905.00 …………………… Total assessed income: 31946896.00 …………………. As such in assessment order the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 33,35,135/- by disallowing standard deduction

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

19,46,8961-. The Ld. AO has made the addition as under: Income declared by assessee: 4608856.00 Add: Addition due to disallowing standard deduction u/s 24: 3335135.00 Add: Addition in trading results: 24002905.00 …………………… Total assessed income: 31946896.00 …………………. As such in assessment order the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 33,35,135/- by disallowing standard deduction

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

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above in the case of Surendra Sharma there are a number of decisions of similar nature such

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

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

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

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 54 postulate purchase of new house by the assessee and does not contemplate that the house shall be purchased in the name of the assessee only. I further note that when the entire purchase consideration has been flown from the proceeds of the sale of the existing house of the assessee then the condition of investing the sale proceeds

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 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