KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

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

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

19 and the assessee has filed the ITR on 31.03.2022. Before that the assessee also submitted the claim which is also supported in the Form no. 3CB-3CD which were filed on 08.02.2022 and thus it was compliance in substance. The only ITR was filed on 31.03.2022 thus, the substantial compliance was made by the assessee before the due date

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

house, then instead of the capital gain, the income would be charged in terms of provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 54. As per Sub-Section (2), if the amount of capital gains is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

19 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. sec. 271AAB, the AO has to issue a show cause notice and give a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus the levy of penalty u/s. 271AAB is not automatic but the A.O. has to take a decision to impose the penalty after giving a proper opportunity

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and other sources. The assessee is partner in the partnership firm and also director in various companies. There was a search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act on 15.10.2014 at the residence and business concern of M/s. Bhuramal Rajmal Surana, a proprietorship concern of Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF. During the course of search, certain incriminating

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

19 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. consequential act but the AO has to first initiate proceedings by issuing a show cause notice and after considering the explanation and reply of the assessee has to take a decision. This requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing itself makes it clear that the penalty u/s 271AAB

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

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

4 and 5 of assessment order 11 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT “3.5. In compliance of above query, Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted vide his written submission dated 22.12.2017 that: “1. The assessee has invested in residential house property within the stipulated time to claim deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961. Copy of conveyance

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has been found during the course of search. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the undisclosed investment in purchase of land cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed investment represents income

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.

4) was introduced by Finance Act, 1987 wef AY 1988-89. Memorandumexplaining the provision of the act read as under: 19 Indira Giri vs. ITO RATIONALISATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO CAPITAL GAINS “Under the existing provisions of Section 54, 54B, 54D and 54F, long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of any immovable property used for residence, land used

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, income from interest and other sources. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act on 19.12.2014 in case of one Shri D.P. Sehgal, Jaipur. During the said search and seizure proceedings, a letter signed by the assessee in respect of the loan of Rs. 15 crores from Shri D.P. Sehgal along with

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

19 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms and the same

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri Kamal Sethia vs. ACIT various premises of Vardhman Group. The assessee was also covered by the said search and seizure action and the statement of the assessee were recorded U/s 132(4

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

house property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri Vivek Sethia vs. ACIT various premises of Vardhman Group. The assessee was also covered by the said search and seizure action and the statement of the assessee were recorded U/s 132(4

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

house property and other sources. The advances have been given for purchasing of land which clearly suggests that the assessee was into this business which he has also explained in response to question no.3. 8.3 It was further submitted that it is important to note that the income declared by the assessee has been accepted

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