KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

24,924.50 11,07,57,000 1,90,00,795.60 M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Since the provisions “Income from House Property” are not applicable on the properties lying as stock in trade the provisions of taxing the deeming rent (ALV) will also be not applicable on the assessee as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

24,924.50 11,07,57,000 1,90,00,795.60 M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Since the provisions “Income from House Property” are not applicable on the properties lying as stock in trade the provisions of taxing the deeming rent (ALV) will also be not applicable on the assessee as held by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

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

24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision and there are well established\nprinciples for the interpretation of such a penal provision. Such a provision has to\nbe construed strictly and narrowly and not widely or with the object of advancing\nthe object and intention of the legislature.”\n8.3 The present case is also supported by decision of this

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

24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision and there are well established\nprinciples for the interpretation of such a penal provision. Such a provision has to\nbe construed strictly and narrowly and not widely or with the object of advancing\nthe object and intention of the legislature.”\n8.3 The present case is also supported by decision of this

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

24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision and there are well established\nprinciples for the interpretation of such a penal provision. Such a provision has to\nbe construed strictly and narrowly and not widely or with the object of advancing\nthe object and intention of the legislature.”\n8.3 The present case is also supported by decision of this

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

24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision and there are well established\nprinciples for the interpretation of such a penal provision. Such a provision has to\nbe construed strictly and narrowly and not widely or with the object of advancing\nthe object and intention of the legislature.”\n8.3 The present case is also supported by decision of this

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

24. Sec.271 of the Act is a penal provision and there are well established\nprinciples for the interpretation of such a penal provision. Such a provision has to\nbe construed strictly and narrowly and not widely or with the object of advancing\nthe object and intention of the legislature.”\n8.3 The present case is also supported by decision of this

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has been found during the course of search. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the undisclosed investment in purchase of land cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed investment represents income

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

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

24 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR exemption under Section 11 of the Act – Held that:- Determination of nature of trust as wholly religious or wholly charitable or both charitable and religious under the Act is not a question of fact - It is but a question which requires examination of legal effects of the proven facts

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 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company "(6) Section 194C, as already noticed, makes provision where for certain payments, liability of the payee to deduct tax at source arises. Therefore, if there is any breach of such requirement, question of applicability of section 40(a)(ia) would arise. Despite such circumstances existing, sub-section (3) makes exclusion

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

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

vi) \n56,31,38,250 \n\nS.No \nName of the assessee \nFY 2015-16 \nAY 2016-17 \nFY 2016-17 \nAY 2017-18 \nFY 2017-18 \nAY 2018-19 \nTotal \n1 \nAnshu Sahay HUF \n16,21,91,214 \n17,81,66,880 \n3,40,24,557 \n37,43,82,651 \n2 \nDr. Madhuri Sahay

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.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

property to be used or applied directly for the benefit of a persons referred to U/s 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, nothing contained in Section 11 and 12 shall operate so as to exclude the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the activities of the assessee

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

VI-A 59,321 TOTAL INCOME 3,15,325 That the appellant is a regular taxpayer and filling his return of income continuously since a long. The only source of income of the appellant is Income from House Property and Income from Other Sources. That during the year under consideration the appellant sold a capital asset (piece of land

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vi) Deleting the addition of Rs. 90,14,795/- made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds on account of investment in mutual fund units ; vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vi) Deleting the addition of Rs. 90,14,795/- made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds on account of investment in mutual fund units ; vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee