AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

property by the service provider under the direct control of the RCA. He observed that in the present case the service provider is paying to the RCA for using the premises as hotel. It is clear for the same that the motive of RCA is to maximize the profit. He observed that RCA is generating huge profit year after year

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 (1) (va): Rs 19064 (b) Prior period expenses: : Rs. 16545 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT (A)is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in not allowing deduction w/s 80G in respect of donation of Rs 40072 disallowed by the Ld. A.O in assessment. 2.1 Apropos Ground

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

Housing V. ITO (ITA No. 5188/Del/2019.  DCIT Vs. Bsant Bansal (ITA No. 610/JP/2012.  Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta vs. ACIT 141 taxmann.com 369 ( Mumbai- Trib.)( 2022)  Vikram Krishna vs. PCIT 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC) (2020)  PCIT vs. Glandder Ceramics Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon

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

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

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

house." 8. After responding to all the queries of ld. AO and after satisfying him in respect of all the issues raised following alternative submission was made vide response letter dated 26.12.2019: - “Further, as per explanation of section 56(2)(viib), the fair market value of the share shall be the value (1) as per rule 11UA

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. House Property a) Rented House Property- 81,973/- b) SOP House Property 1,50,000/- Total 5,06,678/- 2.4 The ld. AO alleged that as per balance sheet submitted by appellant, against the outstanding housing loan of Rs. 44,12,966/-, investment in property has been shown at Rs. 20,12,207/-. Therefore, the housing loan

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.” 6. To support the arguments so raised the ld. AR of the assessee and has relied upon the following evidences in support of the contentions so raised:- 10 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO S. No. Particulars Pg. No. 1. Copy of submission filed before Ld. CIT(A) 1-4 2. Copy of Index of paper book filed before

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, 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. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

property to be used or applied directly for the benefit of a persons referred to U/s 13(3) of the Act. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, nothing contained in Section 11 and 12 shall operate so as to exclude the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the activities of the assessee

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. Record reveals that the claim of the society does not fall u/s. 80P(2

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. 24.” Income chargeable under

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

2), viz. 139 and 139(1) in two different sentences. In the first sentence with reference to appropriation of un-utilised amount of 8 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab Chand Meena Vs. ACIT(OSD) capital gain, section 139 is referred without mentioning any sub section. While in the second sentence with reference to deposition of amount in capital gain account, section

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