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

200 sq. Feet. Therefore, the property sold by the assessee was a Residential House fit for residence of a family. 3. It is submitted that the assessee relies on the decision by jurisdictional ITAT in the case of - Seema Singh Beniwal v. DCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 359 (ITAT –Jaipur) ( Copy at case law paper book page

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of illegitimate and erroneous deduction of Rs. 1,59,000/- under Chapter VIA of the Act, loss from House property at Rs 70,000/- and non disclosure of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-, the facts could never be brought on record. Thereby the assessee would have gone

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

200/- on 17.03.2010. The AO noted that the assessee sold his property situated at Malviya Nagar, Jaipur on 05.06.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- and computed the long term capital gain at Rs. 27,00,122/- which was claimed as exempt u/s 54 on account of purchase of two houses at Pratab Nagar and Shiv Shakti Nagar

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house will be made registered in the name of the assessee. Further. the\nassessee did not produce any further document such as Registry till the date of passing the\nassessment order to establish his claim that full payment had been made and the New\nHouse Property was purchased by the assessee.\n2.4 Furthermore, the assessee did not produce any documentary

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

200/- as held by the Assessing Officer, based on the verification done by the Assessing Officer during the course of remand proceedings. Both the parties have not contested the said findings of the ld CIT(A) and the same has thus attained finality. 14. Regarding the other contentions raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), we refer

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

200/- which on appeal has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A). 15. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee owns house situated at House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota which has been let out during the year. The rental income of Rs. 1.2 lakh has been shown in the revised return filed

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house built upon the land, therefore, the AO denied the claim of deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. The ld. CIT (A) has also considered the entire property being agricultural land in terms of section 2(1A) which defines Agricultural income

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under section 139(1) only not under section 139(4) of the Act." 15. Tribunal, as a matter of fact, has accorded one more opportunity to the appellant

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

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration.\nEquating the income

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

200/-. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 on 21st March, 2013 to assess the income on account of sale of properties by the assessee. The AO recorded the Shri Ram Narain Yadav, Jaipur. reasons and proposed to assess the long term capital gain to the extent of Rs. 17,60,846/- which he believed