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

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on thedate of sale. C1.lt was categorically submitted before Id. PCIT that assessee was having only one residential property. The property situated at Raghunandan Vihar was just a plot of land. The same was let out to the neighbor for storing in building material. Copy of Conveyance Deed being Gift Deed in favour of the assessee was duly

KANHAIYA LAL LALWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

313/- on the sale of residential house property without giving any benefit of indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement being the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144/147 of the Act. Based on the assessment order dated 25-10-2018 of the AO, the ITO, Ward 5(1) imposed penalty vide order dated 19-03-2019 amounting

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, the claim of exemption for commercial property investments like shop does not come under the purview of section 54. There has to be investment in agricultural land within two 6 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO years after the date of such

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

313 (Madhya Pradesh)/[2019] 265 Taxman 81 (Madhya Pradesh) (MAG)[22-03-2018] as under:- Headnotes Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained investment (Immovable property) - Assessment year 2006-07-Whether wherefrom statement of one SKL it was evident that assessee engaged in construction business had entered into an agreement with original owner of land and paid Rs.20

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

section 14A of the I.T.Act. The assessee's plea that overdraft is its own money is not acceptable as FDRs were used as security for Over Draft and the source of investment was Over Draft and not its own money. e.g. If an assessee has placed house property as security for taking overdraft would we allow interest expenses against income

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the ground no

house property? The answer is clear no. The Case laws sited by assessee are not relevant as in the case of assessee nexus between borrowed funds and investment was clearly established. The payments were directly made from overdraft account only and also admitted by assessee. Considering the above disallowance of interest of Rs. 20,45,751/- is confirmed. This ground

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

313 (Chandigarh SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Trib.)/[2015] 39 ITR(T) 433 (Chandigarh Trib.) [28-01- 2015] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision read as under- "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Sundry Creditors) Block Periods 1-4-1990 to 20-6-2000 - Where assessee had shown bogus

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

313 (Chandigarh SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Trib.)/[2015] 39 ITR(T) 433 (Chandigarh Trib.) [28-01- 2015] decided similar issue. The head notes of the decision read as under- "Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Sundry Creditors) Block Periods 1-4-1990 to 20-6-2000 - Where assessee had shown bogus

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)

Housing Board, Vs. Jodhpur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AUIPP5565B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (through V.C.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement

SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

313 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department against the judgment of the Hon’ble MP High court. It was accordingly submitted that there is no proper satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing Officer and its case of borrowed satisfaction based on the AIR information, the AO has mentioned wrong facts

WEALTHY SKY DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property”, “ Capital gains” and Income from other sources”], or a company the principal business of which is the business of [trading in shares or] banking or the granting of loans and advances consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAPIL TANEJA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

house property, trading in shares and commodity, capital gain and interest. The assessee filed his return of income on 28th November, 2014 declaring total income of Rs. 22,00,000/- after claiming the exempt income by way of capital gain and dividend from shares total amounting to Rs. 19,09,954/-. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed interest

SHRI NARESH AGARWAL,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned income from above said sources as mentioned. After examining relevant details/documents and after discussion returned income of Rs. 12,05,000/- as declared by the assessee is hereby accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income

SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

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

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned income from above said sources as mentioned. After examining relevant details/documents and after discussion returned income of Rs. 12,05,000/- as declared by the assessee is hereby accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income

SHRI NARESH AGARWAL,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned income from above said sources as mentioned. After examining relevant details/documents and after discussion returned income of Rs. 12,05,000/- as declared by the assessee is hereby accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

property of the electricity Board unlike the present case and is thus distinguishable. The decision in case of Taparia Tools is on the issue of allowability of revenue expenditure in the year of incurrence or spreading over a period of time. The same doesn’t 14 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. support the case