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 situated at K-702, Princess park to the extent of 50% of investment being the share of the assessee which has been jointly purchased in his and wife’s name and thus it cannot be held that the present case is based on “no enquiry” or “lack of enquiry”. Even otherwise there are limitations on the powers

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

30 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI wall was constructed having covered area of 200 sq. feet. Therefore, the ld. AR submitted that the property sold by the assessee was a residential house which is fit for residence of a family. On this aspect, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench ITAT

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 in allowing deduction under section property 154 of Rs.2429590/- only instead of actual expenses incurred of Rs.6154101/- thereby making addition of Rs.3724511/- Thus, from above it is clear that the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the validity of the rectification proceedings on the ground that such a rectification

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10B.” In view of the above submissions, entire interest expense of Rs. 5,06,678/- may please be allowed under income from house property as well under income from other sources as above.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 3, the ld. AR submitted that during the year, the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 40,000/- in Bank

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

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

30-6-1982. And the provisions of sub-section (1) were consequently amended to read, as contained in the current provisions, where it talks about transfer of a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

30% U/s 24A and interest expenses U/s 24B of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) while deciding these issues. The ld AR also relied upon

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

30% U/s 24A and interest expenses U/s 24B of the Act. 5. On the contrary, the ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) while deciding these issues. The ld AR also relied upon

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

section 194C(7) of the Act. The ld DR has further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in treating the rental income received from M/s L&T Ltd. as Income from house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

housing and in a way leads us to assess the intention of the assessee and if the intention of the assessee is to purchase a new property and that is fulfilled by the facts on record, then enabling the provision of keeping the amount in a particular scheme whether that is fulfilled or not should not destroy the ultimate bonafide

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

house property. In that case the appellant was already owning the entire building consisting of four floors and through development agreement with a builder, two developed floors constructed by the builder were given to the appellant. Similarly the facts of the case of Surender Sharma Vs ITO (Supra) are also distinguishable as in that case, two separate agreements for sale

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

house property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of 30

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

30): In this regard, it is submitted that exemption u/s 54F was claimed by assessee towards cost of construction of house property and in support of claim of expenditure being incurred, assessee furnished Valuation report from registered valuer, according to which value of construction was shown at Rs.4,03,920/-. However, ld.AO by alleging that such report is dated

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

30 percent of the rental income, amounting to Rs. 4,93,435 earned by the assessee trust. 8.2 OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. In the assessment order. Assessing Officer observed as given below:- "There is no provision in the Act with regard to trusts which allows application of income on notional basis. In fact section 11 is so worded that

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands

PRAMOD BANSAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 224/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Cuke M/S. Pramod Bansal Enterprises (P) Ltd The Acit Vs. 2-Ka-14, Vigyan Nagar Circle-1 Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcp 7265 Q Vihykfkhz@ Appellant Izr;Fkhz@ Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls @Assessee By :Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Rai, Dcit- Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /10/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16-01-2017 Of Ld. Cit(A), Kota For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal. ‘’1. That The Ao Has Grossly Erred On Law & Facts In Considering The Income At The Notional & Estimated Of Rent Of House No. 125, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota Rs. 4,04,215/- Whereas The House Was Vacant, The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao. That After Allowing Deduction U/S 24(1) The Addition Is Made For Rs. 2,82,950/-.

30% u/s 24 of the Act, the AO assessed the income from house property at Rs. 2,82,950/- and added to the income of the assessee. 2.3 The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 2.4 Before the Tribunal, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that construction of house