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

section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 to half value of investment made in one residential house property. As sale consideration reported in the registered sale deeds executed for purchase of immovable properties situated at flat No. 702, Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad is more than the same consideration reported in sale deed executed for purchase of flat

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

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

house property at Rs 70,000/-. However, after initiation of enquiries by the Department u/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed his return of income and paid the due tax. Further, the assessee declared income from other sources

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

house property at Rs 70,000/-. However, after initiation of enquiries by the Department u/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed his return of income and paid the due tax. Further, the assessee declared income from other sources

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

house property at Rs 70,000/-. However, after initiation of enquiries by the Department u/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed his return of income and paid the due tax. Further, the assessee declared income from other sources

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

25,330/- comprising income from rent, capital gain and interest. During the year under consideration the assessee sold a piece of land and disclosed long term capital gain of Rs. 89,07,273/- in the return of income. The assessee while computing the capital gain has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 60,63,980/- on account

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.

house property before the date of filing the return of income is not conclusive.” Appellant wishes to mention that post-dated cheques issued for arising from an agreement attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as the balance amount of Rs. 84,27,600/-, paid by issuing post-dated cheques, had become legally payble by the appellant pursuant

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

property purchased by the appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act was not 'worth occupying and inhabitable, therefore, it was held that the appellant was not entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. (x) It may be mentioned that by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, the words ‘constructed a residential house' in section

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

25% in the new property where as the share of assessee in the property was 50%. This fact was brought to the notice of Assessing office at the time of assessment proceeding and the assessing Officer after examine the facts and evidence rightly allowed the deduction claim u/s 54 F therefore, there was no error in the order passed

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

25[ 26[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee 27 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 28[***], being buildings or 29lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house 29, the income of which is chargeable under

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

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property at Rs 70,000/-. However, after initiation of enquiries by the Department u/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed his return of income and paid the due tax. Further, the assessee declared income from other sources

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n22,25,471\nTOTAL\n57,42,791\nThe action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 57,42,791.\nThe assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

house property at Rs 70,000/-. However, after initiation of enquiries by the Department u/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2018, the assessee filed his return of income and paid the due tax. Further, the assessee declared income from other sources

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

house property. (3) Further, assessee can also claim exemption, if the capital gain is utilized within the time limit u/s 139(4) even though nothing is deposited in the capital gain account within time limit u/s 139(1) as first limb of section 54(2) states merely section 139 and does not specify any sub section thereof. From the above

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

25,000/- allotment First Floor 2006-07 4,00,000/- 1991-92 1,89,600/- 2,10,400/- Second Floor 2007-08 10,55,000/- 2007-08 5,95,270/- 4,59,730/- Total 26,80,000/- 7,84,870/- 18,95,130/- The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. KULWANT KAUR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

25-07-2008 declaring that the said property was given on rent and that the property included a house appurtenant to the land. 5.3.2 I have considered the above mention facts. The moot point in this case is whether the land under consideration was having a residential property or not? It is true that at the time of sale

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands