M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] which were passed on 20.12.2017 & 24.11.2018. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 are interrelated, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each appeal, therefore, these appeals were heard

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and found there is only boundary wall with gate and on whole land there was little construction, with walls and Tin shed roofing and construction is about 700-800 Sq.ft as against 1504 Sq.ft. construction claimed by assessee. The Ld. A.O. in assessment order gave scanned photographs stated to have been taken by Inpsector on site visit

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)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments. unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

house property. (iii) Nipun Mehtotra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Banglore Tribunal) 113 TTJ 0223 Perusal of sub-s. (4) of s. 54 shows that the assessee has to utilize the amount for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139. There is no mention

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

254(4) along with the necessary provisions of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. This was with regard to the proposition that the respondent before the Tribunal, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. Not only that the provisions of rules

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

house property income is already offered separately and thereby taxing it again under the head profit and gain of business or profession does not require to be added and that too under the provision of section 154 of the Act. He also submitted that the other income of Rs. 22,303 is also same way offered as other income. Considering

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

254 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was given on 12.09.2018 only as per direction made by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in the appellate order bearing ITA No. 308 & 275/JP/2018 dated 25.06.2018. 7. In ITA No. 239/JP/2022, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

254 Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur r.w.s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 was given on 12.09.2018 only as per direction made by the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Benches, Jaipur in the appellate order bearing ITA No. 308 & 275/JP/2018 dated 25.06.2018. 7. In ITA No. 239/JP/2022, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

house as on date comes to Rs. 1,62,84,560/-. 3. The long term capital gain on sale of property at D-112 and tax thereon works out as under:- Amount Particulars (in Rs.) Sale consideration of property 3,50,00,000 Less: Brokerage Paid 3,50,000 3,46,50,000 Less: Purchase cost

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

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

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

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/698 of the Act:- In the case of Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 632 (Allahabad-Trib.) it is held

SMT. ASHA GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of A.O. in not allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 35 lacs u/s 54F of the Act in respect of house property

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House property, Business and Other sources. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings ld.AO found that assessee has shown receipt of loan from Smt. Suman Agarwal and Smt. Laxmi Agarwal. To verify the identity, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. Enquiry was conducted u/s 133(6) of the Act. 3.2 In the case of depositor Smt. Laxmi

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business capital gains and other sources. Return of income for\nthe year under appeal was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2012 declaring the total income at\nRs.2,29,200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

house property, business of property developers, capital gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A