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

house property Rs. 1,00,37,910 and deduction u/s 54F Rs. 94,39,201 and LTCG income at Rs. Nil and total income of Rs 18,21,680/- 5 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI (Copy at Paper book page no 10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section

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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section

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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section

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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section

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

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

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

section 54 of the Act. 5. Regarding the other finding of the Assessing Officer that the nature of the property is that of shops as mentioned in the sale deed itself and the basement was constructed under the shops and therefore is a part of the shopping complex, it was submitted that from the perusal of the sale deed

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

21,42,598/- U/s 24 of the Act. From the facts of the case, we further noticed that the A.O. treated the rental income received by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ by holding that the assessee had flouted the terms and conditions of allotment and had sublet more than area which was prescribed by the RIICO authority without

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

21,42,598/- U/s 24 of the Act. From the facts of the case, we further noticed that the A.O. treated the rental income received by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ by holding that the assessee had flouted the terms and conditions of allotment and had sublet more than area which was prescribed by the RIICO authority without

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

21 17 only. The assessee had placed on record the following details with regards to the payment for purchase of new on record the following details with regards to the payment for purchase of new on record the following details with regards to the payment for purchase of new property [PB 78-111]: 5.1. The fact that property was majorly

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.

property and just because builder could not complete construction of residential Delhi ITA No:- house, claim of exemption under 2692/Del/2018 section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied 3 When assessee invested a sum in Principal CIT Vs purchase of land, which was invested Smt. Charumathi after date of sale of original asset and Seshadri IN THE before

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

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs 1,21,350/- on account of non declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

21 ITA 263/JP/14_ Sh. Bhagwan Swaroop Agarwal Vs. ITO from house property' (hereafter in this section referred to as the original

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

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

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)

21,152 3.7. It may please be noted that none of the additions based on the above reasons have been made in the reassessment proceedings. The additions made are on the following reasons: 10 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra I. Accumulation of Income under section 11(2) Rs.1,11,000 II. Income from House Property