M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Housing Board and Ahemdabad Urban Development authority are concerned ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. are no more binding precedents in view of the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Jodhpur Development Authority rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Jodhpur Development Authority 287 ITR 473(Raj.) 6. The allegations of the Assessing Officer is that

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

2 years after the date of sale of the capital asset or where a residential house is constructed within 3 years from the date of sale of the capital asset, is now subject to the provisions of section 54F(4). Thus, where the consideration received on sale of capital asset is not appropriated (where purchase was earlier than sale

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

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house society carrying on transport business ; (4) A society property chargeable under section 22. engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees). 29. From the tabular form presented above, it may be clear that the deductions available under clauses

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMACHARIGAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

house society carrying on transport business ; (4) A society property chargeable under section 22. engaged in the performance of any manufacturing operations with the aid of power, where the gross total income does not exceed Rs. 20,000 (twenty thousand rupees). 29. From the tabular form presented above, it may be clear that the deductions available under clauses

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

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

property the stamp duty value noted at Rs. 2,28,76,000/-. Since, the assessee has already paid consideration while booking the flat the subsequent increase in the stamp duty amount does not attract the provision of section 56(2) of the Act as contended by the assessee before the Id. AO. The Id. AO noted that in the case

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

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

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