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

23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed

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

23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed

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

23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed

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

23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed

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

23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed

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

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

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

HOUSE' above\nthe same of the trustee which would have to be inferred to be in the capacity of\nthe trustee of the assessee society. On the contrary, we find no evidence placed on\nrecord by the CIT(E) establishing the utilization of the said property in the\npersonal capacity of Mr. Sangam Mishra as alleged, refuting the cogent material

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources, the provisions of section 32 are not applicable. Provisions of section 32, i.e., deprecation are, therefore, applicable in case of income earned under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION

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

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.

1. Attention is invited to Board’s Circular No. 471, dated 15-10-1986. It was clarified therein that cases of allotment of flats under the Self- Financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) should be treated as cases of construction for the purposes of sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act. The Board has since received

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it\nis open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further\nburden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source,\nvide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72\nITR 194 (SC).\nHere

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

23 ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023 & CO No. 04/JP/2023 DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma recorded in the books of accounts does not exists, then the same has to be specified by the AO in the show cause notice and further the AO is required to give a finding while imposing the penalty under section 271AAB. Even if the AO is satisfied

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house including electricity bills of the house.Family members had been appointed to important posts. Property was also purchased in chairman's name out of trust funds. Thus, there was clear finding of AO in respect of misappropriation and mis-utilization of trust funds. Further, the documentary evidence would clearly go to show that the receipts which are in the name

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

1) is subject to the extended period provided u/s 139(4). Hence, extended period u/s 139(4) has to be considered for the purpose of utilisation of the capital gain amount. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Kishore H. Galiya v. ITO in ITA No.7326/ Mum/2010, has held that when the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,71,628/-. 10. Taking up the alternate plea of the assessee that the interest expenditure is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Act, we have gone through the provisions of law in this regard. Section 24(b) reads as under:- Deductions from income from house property. 24.” Income chargeable under