SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

251 ITR 194 (SC) as well as in case of Totagar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, 322 ITR 283 (SC) whereas the assessee has not earned the interest income on the money of the outsiders but the assessee’s own surplus fund was deposited in the cooperative banks as well as cooperative societies. In support

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

251 ITR 194 (SC) as well as in case of Totagar’s Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO, 322 ITR 283 (SC) whereas the assessee has not earned the interest income on the money of the outsiders but the assessee’s own surplus fund was deposited in the cooperative banks as well as cooperative societies. In support

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

property at Rs. 1,85,150/-, on account of rent of Rs. 2,64,500/- received from letting out of part of unsold portion of project Rama’s Janak Vihar, Banipark, Jaipur. The Assessing Officer has applied ratio lay down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Ansal Housing Finance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. from House Property a) Rented House Property- 81,973/- b) SOP 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

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, the claim of exemption for commercial property investments like shop does not come under the purview of section 54. There has to be investment in agricultural land within two 6 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO years after the date of such

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

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

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 90,86,782/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,72,60,347/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,08,84,208/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,26,52,624/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,26,677/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,73,80,031/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,09,65,285/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,28,95,855/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

251(2) of I. Tax Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 91,50,841/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 2,74,52,522/- imposed by the AO u/s 271AAB

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

251(2) of I. Tax Act. Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Kota. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,10,57,747/- u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act out of penalty of Rs. 3,31,73,241/- imposed

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

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

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

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

Housing Scheme at Kansua, Kota, for which an amount of Rs.20 crores was fixed, which has been paid along with interest to Shri Bakliwal, and the said document is a description of part payments made in this regard. On the basis of the above referred Page No. 56 and the statements of Shri R.K.Verma, the assessee was made to depose

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

2 years from the date of transfer of long term capital asset making investment of Rs. 60,63,980/. The assessee was residing at the same place for last 20 years although the house property stood in the name of his mother Smt. Thakri Devi but for all practical purpose the assessee was having usufructuary ownership over the house property