RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

house property and income\nfrom other sources.\n3.1 In the case of M/s Dhoot Sangmermer Pvt. Ltd, a survey\nunder section 133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri

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

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

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

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

house, therefore, when the said property was constructed one as stated in the agreement dated 24.11.1997, then the claim of the assessee to have constructed the property in the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 cannot be accepted without verification of the fact whether at the time of sale the constructed part

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

house, therefore, when the said property was constructed one as stated in the agreement dated 24.11.1997, then the claim of the assessee to have constructed the property in the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 cannot be accepted without verification of the fact whether at the time of sale the constructed part

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

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

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 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

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, 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

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)

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 were

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

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

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)

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 for statistical

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

property) - Assessment year 2006-07-Whether wherefrom statement of one SKL it was evident that assessee engaged in construction business had entered into an agreement with original owner of land and paid Rs.20 lakhs towards advance (bayana) for purchase of said land, Tribunal rightly upheld addition of Rs.20 lakhs as unexplained investment under section 69 Held, yes Whether, findings recorded

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