KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), 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

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

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 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, 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. 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

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act amounting to Rs.6,71,628/-. 10. Taking up the alternate plea of the assessee that the interest expenditure is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Act, we have gone through the provisions of law in this regard. Section 24(b) reads as under:- Deductions from income from house property

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

36,000/- for the whole year for one portion of the house property is also irrelevant because as mentioned earlier the appellant has let out a portion of first floor whereas the construction was done on second floor. 2.7.5 The construction of the second floor was completed during the relevant assessment year. Due to ignorance of law, the assessee

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

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.06.2016. 2. The Revenue has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,58,811/- made

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

36 of the P.B. as well as vouchers of purchase of building material at page 37 to 145 of the P.B. and submitted that the assessee has produced the evidence of investment in the construction of the house property of Rs. 1,08,64,061/- as per provisions of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

36 due to the oversight or bonafide mistake, the same can be raised even by way of additional ground. Thus when the additional ground is not raising a new issue or plea, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the additional ground raised by the revenue for adjudication on merit. Since the additional ground raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

36 due to the oversight or bonafide mistake, the same can be raised even by way of additional ground. Thus when the additional ground is not raising a new issue or plea, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the additional ground raised by the revenue for adjudication on merit. Since the additional ground raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

36 due to the oversight or bonafide mistake, the same can be raised even by way of additional ground. Thus when the additional ground is not raising a new issue or plea, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, we admit the additional ground raised by the revenue for adjudication on merit. Since the additional ground raised

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.

section 54F of the Act is beneficiary provision and therefore be read accordingly, the assessee has produced all the details related to claim has been placed on record. The affidavit of the assessee has also placed on record. The assessee has also justified the claim by filing the certificate of builders, registered sale deed, fixed deposit statement based on that

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 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'. The ld. CIT(A) has further held that preceding year case i.e A.Y. 2014-15 was also assessed

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

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

36,371/- on which deduction was claimed u/s 54F. Assessee also furnished a copy of Valuation Report of Registered Valuer in support cost of Construction in house property carried out by it. However, Ld. AO recomputed the cost of acquisition claimed by assessee and also disallowed the exemption claimed by assessee by alleging as under: (1) Cost of acquisition

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed his original

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

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property and not a housing loan in terms of section 24(b) of the IT Act. As per capital account and details of payment U/s 80C the assessee has not claimed any repayment of loan amount meaning thereby it may be considered that whole amount of Rs. 9.61 lacs remained loaned during entire period of current year. The assessee