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

34). The assessee was defending his claim under Sec. 54F as under this section only his claim in the original assessment was allowed. Finally, the AO has disallowed claim u/s 54F (which was allowed to the assessee in original assessment) by alleging that the assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 24(b) as explained above. 2.7.3 The observation of the ld. AO that regular EMI of Rs. 49,743/- is being paid from the month of April, 2008 onwards can have no adverse bearing on the claim of the assessee. 2.7.4 The ld. AO’s allegation that appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 36,000/- for the whole

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

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

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 269UA(f), the amount received by the assessee on account of subletting the property is only income from house property and has to be treated as such. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Karnataka High • Court in case of CIT V/s Bhoopalam Commercial Complex and Industries Pvt. Ltd, (2003 130 TAXMAN 338 Kar.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

34,22,814/- is totally unjustified and against the facts on record and addition deserves to be quashed. 3. That the order of the ld. AO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the appellant reserves to the right to add, amend, withdraw or alter any ground of appeal before the finalization of said appeal.” Grounds

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

34,22,814/- is totally unjustified and against the facts on record and addition deserves to be quashed. 3. That the order of the ld. AO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 4. That the appellant reserves to the right to add, amend, withdraw or alter any ground of appeal before the finalization of said appeal.” Grounds

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

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

34,204/- and Rs. 3,72,96,314/- respectively. The assessee claimed exemption U/s 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gain arising from sale of house property against the investment of Rs. 5,00,00,007/- made in two flats bearing No. 7103 5 M/s Pramod Sahai Bhatnagar, HUF vs. ACIT and 7113 situated at 10th

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains -\nSpecial provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases\n[Reference to Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned\nshort term capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.) “..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Special provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference to Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer that value adopted or assessed

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on account of his half share in a property in Delhi and some interest income. The AO therefore concluded that the Assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts for the AY in question. The AO noted that in a statement dated 24th September 2007, recorded by the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, the Assessee denied knowledge

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains\nSpecial provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases\n[Reference to Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned\nshort term capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property declared by assessee by holding that the same should be assessed as Income from Other Sources. Aggrieved of Bench. 4. The AO arrived the findings the amount of Rs. 15,34,28,700/- will be taxed as per provisions of section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.)\n“..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains\nSpecial provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases\n[Reference to Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned\nshort term capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34 taxmann.com 258 (Delhi - Trib.) “..Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Special provision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference to Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer that value adopted or assessed

SHRI UMESH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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

34,800/-. Assessee incurred cost of improvement on property to make it liveable. Total cost of property is amounting to Rs. 12,36,700/-. This has not considered by the CIT (Appeals). Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case and disallowance is unjustified and bad in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter