AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 303 (Del.). It would be appropriate here to reproduce the provisions of section 23 of the Act as under: “ Annual value how determined. 23. (i) for the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property

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

Section 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the assessment passed U/s 143(3) dated 26/12/2017 has so far not been considered or decided by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the objection of the assessee that no proceeding

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 properties. Hence the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F. When the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54F, long term capital gain arises from the sale of residential plot was to be charged accordingly. 6 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI The omission has resulted in incorrect computation of long-term capital gain

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

House Property” has been dealt with in Section 22 of the Act which reads as under:- Income from house property

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" In this case the assessee had got lease right from the Rajasthan govt. on the land for a period of 20 years and therefore covered by the provision of section 35 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) of the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of section 22

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

22 and 23 have been interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court whereby it was held that the unsold closing stock of builder and developer is assessable to tax under the head Income from House Property, the vacant space is accordingly liable to be assessed as Income from House Property in terms of provisions of section

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

22 and 23 have been interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court whereby it was held that the unsold closing stock of builder and developer is assessable to tax under the head Income from House Property, the vacant space is accordingly liable to be assessed as Income from House Property in terms of provisions of section

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

22 and 23 have been interpreted by the Hon’ble High Court whereby it was held that the unsold closing stock of builder and developer is assessable to tax under the head Income from House Property, the vacant space is accordingly liable to be assessed as Income from House Property in terms of provisions of 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

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

22 of the Act and the ingredients contained therein for treating the income earned by the assessee by giving portion of the property on rent and had rightly concluded that the assessee had correctly shown the said income under the head “income from house property” as the assessee had fulfilled all the basis conditions of Section

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

22 of the Act and the ingredients contained therein for treating the income earned by the assessee by giving portion of the property on rent and had rightly concluded that the assessee had correctly shown the said income under the head “income from house property” as the assessee had fulfilled all the basis conditions of Section

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

property in the year 2010 which is not considered the sham document then in that event based on that ownership document the company and the assessee entered into a commercial transaction cannot be considered as sham or within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR heavily relied upon the findings

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

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

house property". 9 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur 14. If we look at the provisions of section 22

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

22,71,440/-. It is relevant to note that the land sold was in the name of appellant-assessee, while the land purchased was in the name of his son and daughter-in-law. 7. A bare reading of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act does not suggest that assessee would be entitled to get exemption for the land

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

22 to 36 of the P.B. as well as vouchers of purchase of building material at page 37 to 145 of the P.B. and submitted that the assessee has produced the evidence of investment in the construction of the house property of Rs. 1,08,64,061/- as per provisions of Section

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

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act the ld. AR has submitted that initially the assessee used to supply textbooks entirely to the government schools under the scheme of free of cost however, over the time the private educational institutions have taken the significant number of students the assessee has started supplying the textbooks to the private distributors