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

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

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

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

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

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

property where all his family 23 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT members could settle their life happily and there would not be any dispute in between two sons for the residential units. The need of the assessee and his family members was fulfilled after the purchase of the two flats in the same locality. The assessee made purchase

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

23,201/- u/s 54 of the Act which at PB pages 16 to 18. Before proceeding further, we want to evaluate Section 54 and Section 54F of the Act which are reproduced below. ‘’Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1)] 40[41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

house property” shall be computed after making the following deductions namely: (a)……………………………………… (b)where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 23

M/S RAJ LANDMARK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property only for the month of March, 2013. As far as the issue of assessing the property held as stock in trade by applying notional annual value as per the provisions of Section 23

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

house property". 9 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur 14. If we look at the provisions of section 22 and 23

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, the benefit is available if the investment is made within three years from the date of the transfer. 2. The Board had occasion to examine as to whether the acquisition of a flat by an allottee under the Self-Financing Scheme (SFS) of the D.D.A. amounts to purchase or is construction by the D.D.A. on behalf of the allottee

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

house consists of several independent residential unit deduction u/s 54/54F could not be disallowed. In the case of the assessee she has acquired a single residential flat having a single kitchen and has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in sec.54 therefore the exemption claimed u/s 54 may please be allowed as the same has been ITA 769/JP/2017_ 20 Dr. Asha

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

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

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 54 of the Act only in respect of one house at the choice of the assessee. 13. Ground No. 2(b) and 2(c) are regarding disallowances claim of interest u/s 48 of the Act as well as under 24(b) of the Act. The assessee has raised an additional ground before the ld. CIT(A) regarding the deduction

PRAMOD BANSAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 224/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Pramod Bansal Enterprises (P) Ltd The Acit Vs. 2-Ka-14, Vigyan Nagar Circle-1 Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcp 7265 Q Vihykfkhz@ Appellant Izr;Fkhz@ Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls @Assessee By :Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Rai, Dcit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /10/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16-01-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Kota For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal. ‘’1. That The Ao Has Grossly Erred On Law & Facts In Considering The Income At The Notional & Estimated Of Rent Of House No. 125, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota Rs. 4,04,215/- Whereas The House Was Vacant, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao. That After Allowing Deduction U/S 24(1) The Addition Is Made For Rs. 2,82,950/-.

property but these are the guards and driver of the assessee who were allowed to stay there for the purpose of security of under construction house. The AO accepted this fact that house was not given on rent by the assessee and proceeded to determine the fair rental value/ fair rateable value as per provisions of section 23

SHRI UMESH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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

23 of the paper book and submitted that the description of the property clearly reveals that there was no construction on the vacant plot at the time of purchase. The ld. AR has then referred to the sale deed dated 05.11.2008 whereby the said plot of land was sold by the assessee and submitted that at page