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

1. House 574405.00 2. House 2 438675.00 In this schedule the assessee had nowhere stated that these two houses were residential houses. It is not clear from where the AO gathered the information that these two houses were residential houses. There could be following possibilities in this case: a. Both the houses were residential houses. b. Both the houses were

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to\nbe mandatory, the words may direct in sub section 2 there of intended\nto directory'. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory\nlevy of penalty is discretionary.\n9. Penalty u/s 271AAB attracts on undisclosed income but not on\nadmission made by the assessee u/s 132(4

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections\n80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs\n15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming\nloss under the head Income from House Property at Rs 70,000/-thereby\ndeclaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- wherein the assessee\nclaimed refund

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

1) regarding the quantum of penalty. The primary condition for levy of penalty is the existence of undisclosed income as per the disclosure made by the assessee under section 132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271AAB of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- u/s 271AAB of the Act, holding

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.

1) of the IT Act?” The said question has been answered by the Hon’ble Court in the following words: - “As is clear from Sub Section (4) in the event of the assessee not investing the capital gains either in purchasing the residential house or in constructing a residential house within the period stipulated in Section

BHAWANI SHANKAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

House Property, showing income under the head Profit and Gains from Business and Profession (covered under section 44AD) and Income from Other Sources. Since, assessee was not aware of the technical provisions of turnover etc. related to shares and securities business and since he also suffered loss, same was not declared in return of income. The case of the assessee

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 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-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

properties. According to the ld. Pr.CIT, as per the proviso (ii) of Section 54F(1) of the Act, no deduction is allowable to the assessee if he purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset. Consequently, after issuing show cause notice and seeking reply

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House Property, Business or profession and income from other sources. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out at the premises of assessee in connection with search and seizure action in Saini-Gupta- Malpani-Somani Group of Ajmer on 13.02.2020. During the year under consideration, the assessee filed his original Return

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

House Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31-7-2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)". 4

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. 10. In light of above discussions, we find that there is not sufficient material that is\nbrought on record to take a definitive view in the matter on withdrawal of approval\ngranted to the assessee u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The matter is accordingly set-aside\nto the file of the Ld. CIT(E) to examine

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

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources, the provisions of section 32 are not applicable. Provisions of section 32, i.e., deprecation are, therefore, applicable in case of income earned under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

house. Both, such undisclosed\nincome and such undisclosed asset/house construction, are the undisclosed\nincome of the appellant as per the section 271AAB of the Act.\nReliance is also placed up on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Benchs-B,\nJaipur order in the case of Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT Central Circle-3,\nJaipur in ITA No. 992/JP/2017