KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

house and Rs. 1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included in COA - Rs. 4,55,540/-: The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law and on the facts

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

house duly recorded and supported from the documentary evidences. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining partial disallowance of deduction u/s 54F particularly when the appellant has made investment of whole of the net consideration received in construction of new property. 8. That on the facts

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while determining the income of the Appellant Trust under head ‘income from house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 while determining the income of the Appellant Trust under head ‘income from house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

property and later sells it at profit, the gain made by the company will be\nassessable under the head “capital gains”. Similarly, if a company purchases rented house\nand gets rent, such rent will be assessable to tax under s. 22 as income from house\nproperty. Likewise, the company may have income from other sources. The company may\nalso

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234A, B, C. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend, alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

234A, B,C and D. The interest so charged is being totally contrary to the provision of law and on facts of the case and hence same may kindly be deleted in full . 3 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT 5. That the appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property, other sources which had had already been shown and taxed under these income separately in the respective heads vide ITR itself. Thus the ld. AO taxed the income of Rs. 11,56,302/- twice or double one under the business income and second under the respective heads or sources of income. Only due to accounting or entries

ACIT, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMNT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

house property” as “Income from business”; (ii) Allowing the expenses of Rs. 3634.99 lakhs by treating the same as revenue expenditure; (iii) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1599.37 lakhs by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee also constituted the shares of State Government and Municipal Bodies and were never part of assessee

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

house property” as “Income from business”; (ii) Allowing the expenses of Rs. 3634.99 lakhs by treating the same as revenue expenditure; (iii) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1599.37 lakhs by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee also constituted the shares of State Government and Municipal Bodies and were never part of assessee

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

house property” as “Income from business”; (ii) Allowing the expenses of Rs. 3634.99 lakhs by treating the same as revenue expenditure; (iii) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1599.37 lakhs by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee also constituted the shares of State Government and Municipal Bodies and were never part of assessee

ITO, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

house property” as “Income from business”; (ii) Allowing the expenses of Rs. 3634.99 lakhs by treating the same as revenue expenditure; (iii) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1599.37 lakhs by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee also constituted the shares of State Government and Municipal Bodies and were never part of assessee

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

house property” as “Income from business”; (ii) Allowing the expenses of Rs. 3634.99 lakhs by treating the same as revenue expenditure; (iii) Allowing the deduction of Rs. 1599.37 lakhs by holding that ground rent, conversion charges, transfer fee etc. collected by the assessee also constituted the shares of State Government and Municipal Bodies and were never part of assessee

VINOD KUMAR CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

234A, 234B, and 234C and initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That an appeal was filed before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), but due to unforeseen circumstances, the appellant’s authorised representative handling the case passed away due to COVID-19. 4. That since the proceedings

ANUJ MATHUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

house property and other sources. A search under section 132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 30th October, 2014 wherein the assessee has disclosed and surrendered an income of Rs. 7,01,00,000/-. In the return of income filed by the assessee on 30th September, 2015 total income of Rs. 7,88,48,920/- was declared

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

SHRI MUKESH MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain and income from other sources during the year under consideration. There was no business income to the assessee so assessee was not required to maintain the books of accounts as per provision of section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, it cannot be said that the income offered by the assessee falls under

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. 1.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income