KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

4) of section 23 by the Finance Act, 2017, w.e.f. 1-4-2018 : (5) Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

4. Alternative Plea:- It is submitted that the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in making addition under the head income from house property is in contravention of section 23

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

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Housing & Urban Development Authority ( HIMUDA ) 157 taxmann.com 598 (Himachal Pradesh) wherein the High Court has held as under : 2.(iv) The assessee approached the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) by filing three separate appeals for the assessment years 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2009-2010. The assessee claimed that filing of its return was delayed due to delay

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

house, then instead of the capital gain, the income would be charged in terms of provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 54. As per Sub-Section (2), if the amount of capital gains is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset

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

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However

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

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However

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

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However

SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and other sources. The assessee is partner in the partnership firm and also director in various companies. There was a search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act on 15.10.2014 at the residence and business concern of M/s. Bhuramal Rajmal Surana, a proprietorship concern of Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF. During the course of search, certain incriminating

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

23 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. (c) a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). (2) No penalty under the provisions

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

23 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC: Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made

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

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 3,95,30,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assesee was not required to maintain regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have proceeded on the premises that the penalty under section 271AAB is mandatory

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.

4), New 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

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri Vivek Sethia vs. ACIT various premises of Vardhman Group. The assessee was also covered by the said search and seizure action and the statement of the assessee were recorded U/s 132(4

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri Kamal Sethia vs. ACIT various premises of Vardhman Group. The assessee was also covered by the said search and seizure action and the statement of the assessee were recorded U/s 132(4

SHRI RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, income from interest and other sources. There was a search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act on 19.12.2014 in case of one Shri D.P. Sehgal, Jaipur. During the said search and seizure proceedings, a letter signed by the assessee in respect of the loan of Rs. 15 crores from Shri D.P. Sehgal along with

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and income from other sources besides profit from partnership firm. A search and seizure action under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act was carried out on 15th October, 2014 in case of Surana group, Jaipur in which the case of assessee was also covered. In the course of search and seizure action, certain documents were found