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.

40,99,512/-which gives income @ 13.74% per annum. Rental income @ 13.74% much higher than the normal rate of rental income on property which generally comes to 4% to 5%. n) The ld AO assessed the ALV for 25810 sq ft area @ Rs. 24/- per sq ft per month for 7 months at Rs. 43,36,080/-. He miserably failed

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

House of Lords in L' Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 20 has said the question of fairness has to be answered by taking into account various factors, viz., value of the rights which the statute affects; extent to which that value is diminished or extinguished by the suggested retrospective effect

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

40) it is mentioned that the area of Plot sold was 345.5 sq., meter in which one room, toilet and boundary wall was constructed having covered area of 200 sq. Feet. Therefore, the property sold by the assessee was a Residential House fit for residence of a family. 3. It is submitted that the assessee relies on the decision

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

property and had to be satisfied with such arrangement of "A House". In such case having invested in "A House" and declaring the same there was no case of prejudicial to interest of revenue and assessee made his intention full and clear at the outset. Ground No. 2:- Ld. Pr. CIT — 3, Jaipur erred in not accepting assessee's submission

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10B.” In view of the above submissions, entire interest expense of Rs. 5,06,678/- may please be allowed under income from house property as well under income from other sources as above.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 3, the ld. AR submitted that during the year, the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 40

M/S. SEATEL ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR

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

House of Lords in L' office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 20 has said the question of fairness has to be answered by taking into account various factors, viz., value of the rights which the statute affects; extent to which that value is diminished or extinguished by the suggested retrospective effect

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

40% of the area can be given on rent by the owner. However, in the present case, the assessee had given on rent the area approximately 47.57% which according to us is in close proximity of the specific range. The basis reason for treating such income as ‘income from other sources’ by the A.O., was that the assessee

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

40% of the area can be given on rent by the owner. However, in the present case, the assessee had given on rent the area approximately 47.57% which according to us is in close proximity of the specific range. The basis reason for treating such income as ‘income from other sources’ by the A.O., was that the assessee

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 (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration.\nEquating the income

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house/ real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section

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

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 54 of the Act is applicable and if there is no residential property then deduction u/s 54F of the Act would be available. As, there is no dispute about investment of the sale proceed by the assessee in a residential property. Therefore, it is my considered view that on the basis of plethora of evidences produced both during assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed u/s 24(a). It was held by ld. PCIT that 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

SHREYA SINGHVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshreya Singhvi, 80, Kiran Marg, Suraj Nagar Jaipur 302 006 Pan No.: Agmps 2639D ...... Appellant Vs.

40,966/- and indexed cost of acquisition amounting to Rs. 16,98,566/- are not under dispute by the department. In nutshell, the basic objections raised by the AO was that no new house property was constructed by the assessee, rather she renovated the existing one and the construction started on 12.09.2013, i.e. before the sale of capital asset under

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

40. In the present case, insertion of Explanation 3 to section 147 does not in any manner override the main section and has been added with no other purpose than to explain or clarify the main section so as to also bring in 'any other income' (of the second part of section 147) within the ambit of tax, which