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

property within the stipulated time irrespective of any number of residential houses owned by him. As per facts of this case, the assesseee has fully complied with all the conditions of Section 54 of the Act, therefore, he is entitled to claim a deduction u/s 54 of the 35

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

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

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

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 and has purchased two ITA 769/JP/2017_ 4 Dr. Asha Mathur Vs. ACIT residential flats bearing number S-702 and S-703, Scarlet Towers, Vodadara and has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,13,35,940/- under section 54 of the Act which was denied by the AO by observing that the appellant has purchased two residential houses

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

35,335/- was not allowed. (b) Estimation of sale as per circulation certificate Rs. 240 02 905/-: i) The Ld. AO estimated the sale of newspaper as per circulation certificate filed with the RNI. The Ld. AO has not rejected the books of accounts and no discrepancy were notice. As such the addition is unjustified. 6. Submission against addition

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

35,335/- was not allowed. (b) Estimation of sale as per circulation certificate Rs. 240 02 905/-: i) The Ld. AO estimated the sale of newspaper as per circulation certificate filed with the RNI. The Ld. AO has not rejected the books of accounts and no discrepancy were notice. As such the addition is unjustified. 6. Submission against addition

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.

35 under section 54F being a taxmann.com 90) beneficial provision has to be (Hyderabad-Tribunal) construed liberally. In various judicial precedents, it has been held that the condition precedent for claiming benefit under section 54F is only that the capital gain realized from the sale of capital asset should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing

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

35 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company 27(iiib) and section 269UA(f) of the Act. Therefore, for the purpose of section 22 of the Act, the assessee is the deemed owner of the land and the assessee 's contention that sub-letting this land to L&T is to be considered as 'income from house property

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

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], or has within a period of three years after that date 31a[constructed, a residential house], then], instead of the capital gain being

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

35. (1) In respect of expenditure on scientific research, the following deductions shall be allowed— (i) any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended on scientific research related to the business. Explanation.—Where any such expenditure has been laid out or expended before the commencement of the business (not being expenditure laid

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the Id. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has 9 Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer

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

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 talks about the transfer of a long term asset being building or land appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house property. Therefore, in this case, the important question to be considered is whether there is a residential property or not on the land sold during the year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property” while claiming deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- u/s 24(a), whereas as per the provision of section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory if not chargeable under the head “Business & Profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “income from other sources”. Accordingly, the rental income

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

35 stated as under. "The Assessee set off the House Property loss of Rs 162673/- against Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 170618/- as per section

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

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

35,505/-, Rs. 6,37,837/- was paid to Ms. Sangita Tambi and others amount is the interest paid to partner’s @ 12 % which is allowable. The investment of the partners capital is used to earn the interest income as well as to earn the income under the head income from house property so the interest on the partners’ capital

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)

35,505/-, Rs. 6,37,837/- was paid to Ms. Sangita Tambi and others amount is the interest paid to partner’s @ 12 % which is allowable. The investment of the partners capital is used to earn the interest income as well as to earn the income under the head income from house property so the interest on the partners’ capital