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

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

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

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

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

234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 Apropos Ground of appeals (supra), it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

house property? No. The case laws cited by assessee are not relevant as in the case of assessee nexus between borrowed funds and investment as clearly established. The payments were directly made from overdraft account only and also admitted by assessee. Considering the above, disallowance of interest of Rs.20,45,751/- is confirmed. This Ground of appeal is, therefore, dismissed

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. AMIT GUPTA, TARUCHHAYA NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return For The Purpose Of Seeking Foreign Tax Credit Is A Mandatory Condition. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Foreign Tax Credit Amount Of Rs.64,00,660/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Neither Filed Return Nor Form 67 For Claiming Foreign Tax Credit Within Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is Due Date Prescribed For The Relevant Year Which Is In Contravention To The Provisions Of The Act.

house property income of Rs. 1,06,91,690/- and income from other sources of Rs.80,734/-. The appellant has claimed deduction under chapter Vi-A of the Act of Rs.1,85,000/- Further, the assesse has made tax payments as Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) u/s.90/91 of the Act of Rs.64,00,660/- and other payments ie. TDS/TCS, Advance

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

property of the assessee was undoubtedly connected with and advantageous to the business activity of the assessee. Though it conferred upon the assessee an enduring advantage for the benefit of its business, it did not secure to the assessee any tangible, or intangible asset and further the enduring advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee