RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

24.” Income chargeable under the head “Income from house property” shall be computed after making the following deductions namely: (a)……………………………………… (b)where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section

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

24 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT new house property within the specified time period for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961. In the instant case under reference assessee is claiming deduction u/s 54F on purchase of two residential house property which is not allowable and as per provisions of section

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 23(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore the rental income declared should be the assessable income under the head ‘income from house property’ and not the ALV decided as directed by the ld. CIT(A). 2. Decision in the case of Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. in Income Tax Act, 1961 18/1999 dated 31/10/2012

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

property. From the balance sheet, how the learned AO could gather the information that both the houses shown in balance sheet were residential houses. How the learned AO ruled out the other two possibilities to form a belief that on the date of transfer of original asset, the assessee was the owner of two residential houses. 24 DCIT, CIRCLE

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

housing loan mentioned as above the interest of Rs. 5,06,678/- would be allowable as detailed in para 2.3 above and so claimed during assessment proceedings. 5 Smt. Rama Bajaj, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 2.7 Deduction u/s 24(b) 2.7.1 It is humbly submitted that as per Explanation to section 24(b) interest payable on capital borrowed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 99,903/-. The assessee has declared net profit at Rs. 9,133/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 on total turnover of Rs. 1,14,067/-/ Besides, the assessee has declared interest income at Rs. 3,69,437/- under the head income from other

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Section 22 of the Act for treating the income under the head “income from house property”, therefore, it was rightly held that the assessee was also entitled for deduction U/s 24

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

Section 22 of the Act for treating the income under the head “income from house property”, therefore, it was rightly held that the assessee was also entitled for deduction U/s 24

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

section 147 of the Act. The AO considered deemed sale consideration as per stamp duty value u/s 50C at Rs. 43,08,360/-, disallowed claim of cost of construction (after indexation) amounting to Rs. 5,24,602/- and disallowed claim of deduction u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-while computing capital gains on sale of immoveable property

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

24 of the Act. 3. That the A.O has treated this receipt as income from business and not from the house property. 4. That the appellant has cited the provision of section

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

24(b) of the Act. Out of 17.60 lacs, amount of Rs. 9.61 lacs, at the most can be considered against house property and balance amount is a type of mortgage loan on house property and not a housing loan in terms of section

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

24(b) of the Act. Out of 17.60 lacs, amount of Rs. 9.61 lacs, at the most can be considered against house property and balance amount is a type of mortgage loan on house property and not a housing loan in terms of section

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

24(b) of the Act. Out of 17.60 lacs, amount of Rs. 9.61 lacs, at the most can be considered against house property and balance amount is a type of mortgage loan on house property and not a housing loan in terms of section

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.

24 taxmann.com 11 (Mumbai) Headnote of the case law reads as under: “Section 54, read with section 139, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, on profit from sale of property used for residence - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee sold share of his residential flat on 7-3-2006 and earned capital gain of Rs. 9.98 lakh