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

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property should be purchased in the name of the assessee. It merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". It is also not necessary to purchase/construct a residential house exclusively in the name of the assessee. Apart from above facts, the reliance was placed on the following decisions in which exemption u/s 54/ 54F/54B/54EC

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

property after dismantling an old house. Therefore, the assessee produced irrefutable evidence to prove that the assessee has 5 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT constructed a new house after demolition of old house. The ld. AR then referred to the lease deed in respect of Flat No. 101 which was taken by the assessee on rent for his residential purpose

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

Section 54 of the Act it is to be seen whether assessee had constructed residential house within three years of the transfer of Delhi property. For doing so, the meaning of the term "house" is to be explored. What is the meaning of the word "house"? The term "house" has not been given any statutory definition and, thus

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

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

house property and other sources. The advances have been given for purchasing of land which clearly suggests that the assessee was into this business which he has also explained in response to question no.3. 8.3 It was further submitted that it is important to note that the income declared by the assessee has been accepted

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 147 of the act and not u/s 251 (1) (a) of the act. Further the Honourable Delhi high court in para no 27 has also held that power of the first appellate authority is not restricted to examine only those aspects of assessment about which the assessee makes a grievance but it covers the whole assessment to correct

VIVEK JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

house 4 Shri Vivek Jain, Jaipur, vs. DCIT, Jaipur was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife, deduction under section 54 was allowed. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (165 ITR 228) wherein in the context of section

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

Housing Scheme Policy, 2009.\nAll the above evidences establish beyond doubt that M/s Nav Bharat Nirman \nCo. (JV) has taken loan from R. K. Verma for the purpose of its business and the \ntransactions are duly reflected in its regular books of accounts, which have been \nduly audited. The ITRs have been filed and the same have been accepted

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

House property, Income from Business and\nprofession i.e. proprietor of M/s Shakti Steel and Partner in Firm\nTaj Petroleum and Income from other sources like Interest from\nSaving bank account. The assessee furnished the details such as\ncomputation of income, bank account details etc., with regard to\nissue of capital asset transferred to M/s Royal park Developers at\npoint

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration. 6. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer grosslyerred in disallowing total expenses of Rs. 66,48,590/- claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account and made addition thereof. 7 That

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

property purchased by the assessee appellant during the year under consideration. 6. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer grosslyerred in disallowing total expenses of Rs. 66,48,590/- claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account and made addition thereof. 7 That

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

251\nFACRE HOUSE\nलेगा 15 10\n。\n。\n。\n。\n65,85,800\n?\n。\n。\n。\n。\n98,82,450\nCal\n。\n。\n。\n。\n。\n。\nS.No.\nPrincipal Amount\nPeriod\nInterest Expense\n\n1\n25,00,000\n2 Months\n1,50,000\n\n2\n5,00,000\n1 Month\n15,000\n\n3\n2,50,000\n1 Month

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

251 ITR 329 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Indian Oil Panipat Power consortium Ltd vs. ITO as relied upon by the ld AR. It was submitted that in case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel Limited, there was also an issue with regard to treatment of interest income received

CHANDER MOHAN BHATI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

housing loan has been taken on property 16, Telephone Colony, Jaipur which is owned by his wife Smt Laxmi Bhati. Moreover the property 17, Kalyan Colony, Jaipur also belongs to his wife Srnt Laxmi Bhati. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the appellant had wrongly taken deduction u/s 24(b) and the AO had correctly disallowed the same. Hence