KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

section 32(1) and thus has rightly claimed and been allowed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). (b) The payment of land tax and service tax was made in the year under consideration against the demand and therefore same is otherwise allowable u/s 43B. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Kota 4. The AO thereafter

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

house. 8. While filing the return of income in response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed return of income on 9.8.2017 in which he correctly claimed deduction of Rs 94,32,201/- u/s 54 of Income Tax Act (Copy at Paper book page no 16 to 18) On this return the assessment was completed

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

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)

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition

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

property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above in the case of Surendra Sharma there are a number of decisions of similar nature such

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

32[is greater than the cost of 33[the residential house] so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing

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. 5.4 I have considered the above mentioned facts of the case. It is imperative to go into provision of section 22, section 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f). The provisions of the Act are reproduced as under; 32

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)

32,21,245/- from parties against which interest paid on borrowed fund amounts to Rs. 40,35,505/- thereby incurring loss of Rs. 8,41,260/- which in turn has been set off against the income from house property. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2017, the assessee was asked to show as to why the excess interest payment

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

32,21,245/- from parties against which interest paid on borrowed fund amounts to Rs. 40,35,505/- thereby incurring loss of Rs. 8,41,260/- which in turn has been set off against the income from house property. Thus, vide show cause notice dated 08.12.2017, the assessee was asked to show as to why the excess interest payment

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property as required u/s 54 and thus, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 on the sale value of the residential house constructed on such agricultural land. The ld. A/R submitted that without prejudice to above, in case even it is assumed that the residential house sold by the assessee on the agricultural land is not eligible

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. KULWANT KAUR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 54 of the Act is applicable and if there is no residential property then deduction u/s 54F of the Act would be available. As, there is no dispute about investment of the sale proceed by the assessee in a residential property. Therefore, it is my considered view that on the basis of plethora of evidences produced both during assessment

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

house property, capital gains and other sources, the provisions of section 32 are not applicable. Provisions of section 32, i.e., deprecation

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/-.

section 23(1)(a) of the Act. The AO has not considered the state of the building in question whether it is a bare structure without having all the basic amenities/ facilities and compared the same with another property which was let out on rent. Therefore, once the property in question is shown by the assessee as part

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F being making investment in residential house property and holding the same for atleast 3 years were fulfilled. 8 I.T.(I.T.)A. No. 64/JP/2021 Parvinder Kaur v. PCIT A11.Ld. PCIT has erred in placing reliance on the decisions which are as under: a. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs K Ramachandra

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

32-33) proposing to revise the Assessment order by observing that assessee had declared annual rent of Rs.15 lacs on letting out of “factory alongwith plant & machinery” under the head house property and deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed u/s 24(a). It was held by ld. PCIT that as per the provision of section