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

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

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)

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

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

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

234B & \n234C of the Income Tax Act 1961 for Rs.19,08,302/- and Rs.40,656/-which is \ncontrary to the provisions of law where the specific request was made by the \nassessee in the return filed u/s 139 of the Act.\n6. Under the facts and Circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has \nerred in not allowing benefit

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

house\nproperty for Rs 69.90 Lacs vide a registered sale deed executed on 28.07.2017 (and i.e.\nthe very information also in possession of the AO). Thus, the money of Rs 69.90 Lacs\nwas not source less and the AO himself was of the view that this was a transaction of\nsale of immovable property hence there is no question

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234B, 234C & 234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234B, 234C & 234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

house property and other sources etc.\nPursuant to the search action notice u/s 153A of the Act was\nissued to the assessee on 05.07.2018 which was duly served. In\nresponse to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his\nreturn of income on 18.07.2018, declaring total income of Rs.\n15,67,000/-. Earlier the assessee had filed his return

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

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

section 24 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 while determining the income of the Appellant Trust under head\n'income from house property'.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n7. Under the facts and circumstances

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property\" as enumerated in\nSection 22 of the Act.”\nThe ratio laid down in principal is also applicable in the present case.\nITA NO. 32/JP/2024\nARVIND KUMAR NEHRA, JAIPUR VS ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR\n11. Contradictory approach: In the cash book every details has been given. One side the\nld. AO doubted the cash deposited in the bank