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

42,598/- U/s 24 of the Act. From the facts of the case, we further noticed that the A.O. treated the rental income received by the assessee as ‘income from other sources’ by holding that the assessee had flouted the terms and conditions of allotment and had sublet more than area which was prescribed by the RIICO authority without seeking

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.

house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of 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

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

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)

house property will not be eligible for carry forward following the same approach adopted in the assessment order. This issue is interlinked and emanating from the revised computation submitted by the appellant to the assessing officer and also to the findings of the assessing officer in the assessment order and it can be said that the depreciation was overlooked inadvertently

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42 Residential House Property till 30th June, 2017 A9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd vs CIT [1992] 62 Taxman 480 (SC) [CLC 8-22] held that the beneficial provisions should be construed liberally. The relevant extract of the order is as under: “..5. The section

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.

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

42,91,308/- in the records. The Id. A.O. in the remand report\nhas mentioned that the income declared by the appellant is not commensurate\nwith the investment made in the house property. However in this regard it is\nnoticed that no addition has been done in the assessment in connection with the\ndeclared investment in the house property Further

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings

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

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n22,25,471\nTOTAL\n57,42,791\nThe action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 57,42,791.\nThe assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 69 cannot be invoked and the sundry debtors has to be treated as business or profession income of the assessee. Admittedly, in the present case, no existence of evidence in relation to any unaccounted independent identifiable other investment which was found during the course of survey. It is also admitted fact the appellant admittedly is engaged in business from

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

42,339/- allowed in the processing of return / claimed in the return.’’ 2.1 Besides the above mentioned grounds of appeal in respective assessment years (supra), the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 03-03-2023 prayed for LATE SHRI SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THRU: L/H SMT NIKITA DHARIWAL VS ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA admission of additional evidence under Rule

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. during the course of hearing, assessee relied upon

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

42,791 in\ntotality to the income of the assessee on estimate basis, under different heads of income.\nBreakup of the same is as under:-\n1.1. Income from Salary- Rs. 27,00,000\n1.2. Income from House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42, 20,375/\nwhich does not correspond to the entries made in any of the\ndocuments referred to by him.\nxí.\nxii.\nxiii.\nxív.\nxv.\nxvi.\nDeemed transfer under the provisions of section 2(47)(v) of the Income\nTax Act and Section 53A of transfer of property Act has no application\nfor imputing the notional purchase value

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

42,791 in\ntotality to the income of the assessee on estimate basis, under different heads of income.\nBreakup of the same is as under:-\n1.1. Income from Salary- Rs. 27,00,000\n1.2. Income from House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n==End of OCR page 40==\n41\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018

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

42,791 in\ntotality to the income of the assessee on estimate basis, under different heads of income.\nBreakup of the same is as under:-\n1.1. Income from Salary- Rs. 27,00,000\n1.2. Income from House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA