PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee, before ld. AO, duly placed on record the following documents vide reply to ld. AO dated 26.09.2016: 3 Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur • Sale Deed dated 24.11.2014, registered on 30.12.2014 • Purchase Deed dated 10.03.2014 which was containing the details of payment made prior to one year from the date of sale • Possession

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property. The assessee, before ld. AO, duly placed on record the following documents vide reply to ld. AO dated 26.09.2016: 3 Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Jaipur Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur • Sale Deed dated 24.11.2014, registered on 30.12.2014 • Purchase Deed dated 10.03.2014 which was containing the details of payment made prior to one year from the date of sale • Possession

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property Rs. 1,84,800/- Income from Short term Capital Gain Rs. 5,43,882/- Income from other sources Rs. 72,282/- Add: Long term Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded

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) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

282 provides that personal service of notice is to be made in a manner provided under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sub-rule 15 of code of Civil Procedure, related to service of notice provides as under :- “ Where in any suit, the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought

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

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

282, Rule 127, Art. 226] 1.6 In the instant case also, the Notice for Enablement of Communication window. (notice intimating start of appellate proceedings by NFAC) was issued on 01 11 02022. On the said date, the Primary email id registered in the PAN database was nekiwala71@gmail.com, but the NFAC sent the hearing notices on secondary email id instead

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

house property chargeable under section 22. 17 Reserve Bank Coop. Society Ltd.v. ITO Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an urban consumers' co-operative society means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area, or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee

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

282 ITR 321/[2005] 149 Taxman 456 (Guj.) in which the Court observed as under: "17. Taking up the second issue first, the Tribunal has committed an error in law in holding that the assessee having not filed cross-objection against findings adverse to the assessee in the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the said findings had become final and remained

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

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

282 denied the deduction. The Hon’ble ITAT after reproducing section 80P(2)(a)(i) at Para 6 of the order, analysing the expression ‘attributable to’ at Para 7 & 8 of the order and distinguishing the judgment of Supreme Court at Para 9 of the order, at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. In the instant case

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, 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. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

house property, professional income and income from other source. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for the reason of "Purchase of property". During the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee asking various details w.r.t. the purchase of property

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatchof an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resourcesoutside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when adigitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered incomputer resources outside the control

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

house property chargeable under section 22.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumer co-operative society\nmeans a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal\ncorporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or\ncantoriment\n10\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited

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)

housing market. As a professional intermediary, the broker earns a commission for facilitating successful transactions. During a thorough survey, the assessee-appellant provided comprehensive statements that clearly outlined the nature of each transaction and the pivotal role played in connecting the parties, i.e., the buyers & sellers. These statements were bolstered by meticulous ledger records, receipt books, and formal agreements

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

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

section 54 and have not paid any tax on this alleged on money receipt. Reason by ld. CIT(A) iv. In respect of purchase of Plot No. D-112 from M/s Rawat Constructions Private Limited, ld. CIT(A) admitted (at page 24) that no evidence suggesting on money payment with regard to this property were found but upheld the order