ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses permissible

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house which is not admissible. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT has issued a show cause notice dated 4th February, 2019 under section 263 of the IT Act whereby proposed to modify the order of the AO on the issue of allowing the deduction under section 54F of the Act. The assessee filed her reply to the show cause notice and contended

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

Properties Versus TheDcit, Central Circle-1, Mumbai, 2014 (12) TMI 800 Assessee has explained a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation as there was an inadvertent mistake at the office of the Chartered Accountant - by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the assessee cannot have any ulterior purpose - No prudent person

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3). SUBMISSIONS 1. Ld. PCIT has not disputed the following points: 1.1. The assessee sold a long term capital asset which was not in the nature of residential house property. 1.2. The assessee made investment, within stipulated time, in a residential house property. 1.3. The assessee was fulfilling all the conditions

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act against the appellant are as\nfollows:\n1. Alleged non-submission of the purchase deed for the property acquired to claim\ndeduction under Section 54F, and lack of documentary evidence supporting the cost\nof improvement of the new property;\n2. Alleged non-submission of documentary proof regarding deposit of the unutilized\namount in the Capital Gain Account

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

House Pvt Ltd remained same as the items were transferred from its Mahapura Unit to the Sitapura SEZ unit. " the assessee is transferring semi-finished goods from the Mahapura Unit (Non-deduction claiming unit) to Sitapura Unit (SEZ Unit deduction claiming u/s.10AA) for onwards sale/exports from SEZ Unit. " SEZ Unit did not make any value addition on the same. " there

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263, alleging that the ld. AO failed to tax Rs. 1,44,35,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69. The ld. PCIT further proposed invoking Section 115BBE to levy a higher tax rate on the alleged unexplained income. 8. That the ld. PCIT’s assertion was that the AO did not adequately verify the ownership and source

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property itself is flawed – value of property at the time of transfer is relevant not the cost: It is submitted that the ld. AO proceeded to allow proportionate deduction on the basis of cost of the property which was worked out by the architect in its valuation report which is placed at PB 14-22. Now here

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. As narrated\nhereinabove, the brief facts related to the case of the assessee are that the\nassessee derives income from house property

BHARTESH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

house property situated at 53. Siyaram Nagar, Shyopur Road, Sanganer. However, perusal of bank loan certificate shows that loan of Rs. 50 lakhs was taken in joint names of Bhartesh, Neeraj, Kamlesh and Rajender Jain for the property situated at B-07, Jagan nath puri Yojna, Shyopur Road, Sanganer. Thus, the interest was wrongly allowed by the AO. It appears

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 were applicable to instant case and Commissioner was justified in setting aside assessment order - Held, no In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Real Estate Developers (I)(P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 0377 (Raj) It has been held that Revision—Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue—AO observed that return submitted by Assessee was duly supported

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the CIT(IT)-Delhi-1 by raising the following grounds of appeal; “1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property being a physical asset. We also find that the issue of indexation, in such circumstances, is directly covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Charanbir Singh Jolly(supra), hence, respectfully following the same, we hold that the assessment order is correct in law. Thus, on merits, the issue

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 shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Housing Project) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Whether where assessee, claiming deduction under section 80-IB(10), did not file audit report in Form 10CCB along with return of income but filed same before assessment was complete, assessee could not be made to suffer for it - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of assessee]” b) CIT vs AKS Alloys

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C supported by the case laws was filed. (c) In reply dt. 20.11.2019 (PB 25-28), the blindness certificate of brother, evidence of brokerage paid on sale of land and evidence of expenditure incurred on the agriculture land was filed. (d) In reply dt. 21.11.2019, explanation with respect to investment in house property and evidence of expenditure incurred