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)

2. Income from House Property During the course of assessment proceedings, a detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 20-11-2020 seeking pin pointed queries about the nature of business activities as well as verification of such receipts. The said notice was previously issued by the AO to verify the issue in question

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

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

property and had to be satisfied with such arrangement of "A House". In such case having invested in "A House" and declaring the same there was no case of prejudicial to interest of revenue and assessee made his intention full and clear at the outset. Ground No. 2:- Ld. Pr. CIT — 3, Jaipur erred in not accepting assessee's submission

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

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

2 to sub section 1 of section 263 is not applicable to Assessment Year (2011-12), under consideration. We hold that the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 is bad in law and as such it is quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed. • Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 8 TMI 673 [Compilation

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2)\nof section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\"\n16. Thus, it is clear from the order passed by the ld. PCIT that the ld. PCIT has\ninvoked the provisions of section 263 on the issue of allowability of deduction\nunder section 54F in respect of the investment made by the assessee. Further, the ld.\nPCIT has alleged that

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and construction of residential house on the said land. The AO, thereafter issued notice under section 142(1) dated 14.07.2017 along with a questionnaire. These facts are also evident from the assessment order in para 1 and 2 as under :- 9 Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur. “ Thereafter, the case was transferred to the office of the undersigned from

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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, interest and other sources,\nand filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.19,89,250/- under\nsection 139 of the IT Act, 1961, for the year under consideration. As per\nthe

SHRI DEEPAK KHANNA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 05.12.2018. 2 Shri Deepak Khanna vs. Pr. CIT-2 2. Aggrieved form the order of the ld. PCIT the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds; 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263

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)

2(14)(vi) of the Act, the rights in flat, acquired by the assessee on execution of purchase agreement on 7-8-1993, come within the purview of the term ‘capital asset’. From the perusal of language used in Explanation (iii) to section 48 of the Act, which provides for manner of computation of indexed cost of acquisition

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

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

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 06.06.2019. 2 Bhartesh Jain vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur 2. At outset the ld. AR of the assessee fairly admitted that the appeal is delayed by 94 days and for that he reiterated his written submission and submitted that the assessee has also supported his affidavit

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

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 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 25.11.2019. 2. Aggrieved from the order of Pr. CIT, the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds; 2 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

house, then instead of the capital gain, the income would be charged in terms of provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 54. As per Sub-Section (2), if the amount of capital gains is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of new asset within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset

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

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