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

20 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT eventuality, he could have certainly exercised such powers by putting the assessee to notice. For ready reference, we reproduce clause (c) of Explanation 1 of section 263 of the Act as under: where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer “263(1) (c) had been

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 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Ownership of more than one house) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where a residential property is jointly owned by two persons 20

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20,12,207/-. Therefore, the housing loan was not fully utilized for housing purpose and accordingly, the ld. AO allowed the interest of Rs. 1,50,000/- against the self occupied property and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,98,888/- (3,48,888 -1,50,000). 2.5 During the assessment proceedings, it was explained vide letter dated 5th December

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

20 years although the house property stood in the name of his mother Smt. Thakri Devi but for all practical purpose the assessee was having usufructuary ownership over the house property. The ld. AR has explained that this property bearing No. C-105 Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur was measuring 600 square yards and the mother of the assessee

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

20,39,569/- made by the AO on the basis of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 18/1999 dated 31.10.2012 against which assessee’s SLP has been admitted by the Apex Court in (2018) 95 taxman.com 17 (SC) and decision is pending on the issue ?” Apart from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

20,39,569/- made by the AO on the basis of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 18/1999 dated 31.10.2012 against which assessee’s SLP has been admitted by the Apex Court in (2018) 95 taxman.com 17 (SC) and decision is pending on the issue ?” Apart from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

20,39,569/- made by the AO on the basis of Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 18/1999 dated 31.10.2012 against which assessee’s SLP has been admitted by the Apex Court in (2018) 95 taxman.com 17 (SC) and decision is pending on the issue ?” Apart from

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

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

20 years and therefore covered by the provision of section 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) of the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the appellant is the deemed owner of the land and the appellant's contention that sub-letting this land to L& T is to be considered as 'income from house property

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F. 1.4. The assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s 54F. 2. The only issue raised by ld. PCIT is with regards to the amount of deduction u/s 54F for which the assessee was eligible. 3. It is submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the issues identified for examination were

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

property in 2015 disregarded the same and directed the assessee to produce the contractor who constructed the house. Assessee tried his best but since has no control over the contractor failed to produce him and ld. AO disallowed the exemption claimed by assessee u/s 54F. In this regard, it is submitted that non appearance of contractor before AO should