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 as well as concealing of particulars of\ninterest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also\nmade a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as\ndiscussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law.\nAccordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of\ninterest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also\nmade a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as\ndiscussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law.\nAccordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of\ninterest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also\nmade a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as\ndiscussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law.\nAccordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of\ninterest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also\nmade a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as\ndiscussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law.\nAccordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of\ninterest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also\nmade a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as\ndiscussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law.\nAccordingly, the assessee is held

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property” while claiming deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- u/s 24(a), whereas as per the provision of section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory if not chargeable under the head “Business & Profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “income from other sources”. Accordingly, the rental income

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

houses or independent floors with covered area much\nlarger than the covered area of the property at 25 Kautilya Marg and the comparison\nwas not justified.\n49. Respondent/Assessee further contended that the family members of the erstwhile\nChief Mutawalli, late Abdul Mueed Sahib, occupied a part of the premises at 25\nKautilya Marg, i.e. ground floor, with a covered area

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

house property from 65, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura\nByepass and Krishna Towers, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur,\nincome from Long term capital gain, interest income from Bank, interest\nfrom parties and interest from NSC. It is noted that assessee filed his\noriginal return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 23-08-2011 for the AY 2011-\n12 declaring total

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

25-01-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 1. The ld CIT(A) erred in law, as well as facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs.3,75,985/- made by the AO under the head SALARIES. 2. That the ld CIT(A) erred

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 90(1)(a)(i) is clearly applicable to the facts of the case . 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.” In the above decision, one of the properties is situated in Australia and the Hon’ble ITAT held that income from house property offered in the income tax return in Australia cannot be taxed