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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) disallowances of interest expenses of Rs.6,71,628/- (out of total interest expenses claimed of Rs.11,82,661) considering not for business purposes. 2. The ld. CIT(A) even the cash credit interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property- 1,50,000/- Total 5,06,678/- 2.9.4 First appeal is an extension of assessment proceedings. The powers of CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of AO. In this view of the scheme of the law even verification of facts at CIT(A) level should not obstruct admission of additional claim. When CIT(A) is empowered

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 is available only to an individual or HUF. ii) The asset transferred should be a long-term capital asset, being a residential house property. iii) Within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 is available only to an individual or HUF. ii) The asset transferred should be a long-term capital asset, being a residential house property. iii) Within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within

SHREYA SINGHVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeal) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,09,42,400.00 made by Learned A.O on account of disallowance of deduction under section

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)

house property under section 24b at Rs.91,193/- from the salary is factually incorrect. As regards HRA exemption, the AO has not allowed any exemption from Salary u/s 10(13A), whereas he ought to have allowed the same. The assessee has not claimed any separate exemption in respect of HRA of Rs.44,709/- and Rs.78,247/- In Form

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)

house property and other sources – A reopening notice was issued upon assessee for reason that an information was received through insight portal that assessee despite having a salary of certain taxable amount and having purchased securities of certain amount had not filed his return of income – It was noted that notice under section 148A(b) did not call upon assessee

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

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

MALTI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

house properties for total amount of Rs. 27, 31,935/- for claiming deduction under section 54F of the IT Act. However, in the quantum appeal the CIT(A) restricted the deduction under section 54F of the IT Act to the amount of Rs. 12,15,000/- and allowed substantial relief to the assessee vide its order under section 250

ACIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. DR. SHIV GAUTAM, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

Sections 250(1) of 4 ITA 85/JP/2021_ ACIT Vs Dr. Shiv Gautam the IT Act, 1961. In this connection, order of Hon’ble SC in the case of Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. (1958) 34 ITR 130 (SC) may be studied.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property but is considered as Agricultural income u/s 2(1A) and therefore, benefit of section cannot be availed on sale of agricultural land having constructed house thereon by ignoring Explanation 2 to section 2(1A). 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 54F while disallowing the claim of deduction

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Deduction claimed

SUNITA KHINCHI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property and cash deposit in the bank, along with necessary records maintained. In response, the assessee filed the required documents along with submissions. However, the assessee has not produced any books of account and has not submitted any document to support the expenses claimed in Profit & Loss account. The AO after considering the details/documents/evidences allowed part relief and accordingly

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

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

property. The AO is directed to also consider the\nsubmissions made by the assessee, the legal position, and the valuation report, and\nthereafter make additions, if any, required. The matter is set aside to the file of the\nAO for de novo verification of all factual aspects. The assessee is also directed to\ncooperate fully during the reassessment proceedings.\nGROUND