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

31,84,911/-. Assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F & 54EC of the IT Act, 1961 respectively at Rs. 79,50,021/- and Rs,50,00,000/- by making investment of Rs. 97,82,780/- in house property and Rs. 50,00,000/- in specified bonds i.e. REC & NHAI bonds and taxable long term capital gain has been shown

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

Section 147. Sec. 147 cannot be invoked for making fishing or roving enquiries in the matter. 9. The learned AO has failed in passing any speaking order on the specific issue raised by the assessee in his Objections- as to how the AO considered both the houses shown in the Balance Sheet as Residential Houses - which is in direct violation

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

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

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

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

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

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[one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased 31

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 23 the Act, Assessee is entitled for one house to be kept as ‘SOP’, on which no notional rent can be taken into a/c for computation of House Property Income. In view of this facts, addition of Rs. 31

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 of IT Act is not complied with hence the notice issued by your good self is contrary to the provision of law, We pray that the proceeding may kindly be drop. We are submitting the copy of memorandum of understating in between all the parties of the house no 269, Gall No 04 Raja Park Jaipur regarding division

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

section 139 of the Act. According to ld. AR of the assessee, the investment was made before of 31.03.2009 i.e. the time limit 17 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) provided u/s 139(4), the claim of the assessee u/s 54F was rightly allowed by the Id. CIT(A)”. The Coordinate Bench of the ITAT Jaipur also

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: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property. Ld. AO that of the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the interest paid to partners was not in accordance with the law. As the ld. AO made the disallowance of claim of the assessee as per provision of section 57 of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with the provision

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

house property. Ld. AO that of the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the interest paid to partners was not in accordance with the law. As the ld. AO made the disallowance of claim of the assessee as per provision of section 57 of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with the provision

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

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

31-42 Completion of Investment in 6. Residential House Property 7. Amount of total Investment in 1,00,52,076 42 Residential House Property till 30th June, 2017 A9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC) [CLC 8-22] held that the beneficial provisions should be construed liberally

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)

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

section\n144B of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act”] by\nthe AO.\n2\nITA No. 101/JPR/2024\nSh. Dal Chand Sharma vs.ITO\n2. The assessee has raised following grounds:-\n“1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the\nappeal filed by the assessee on the ground that appeal filed

M/S RAJ LANDMARK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property as per the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cit Vs. M/s Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company judgment dated 31/10/2012. The Assessing Officer applied notional income for unsolved stock @ Rs. 93 per Sq.ft

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article