LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

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.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

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

2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset 43[***], being buildings or 44lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house44, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred

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

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

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

45-68 along with ledger of sub accounts in the books of M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd 6. Copy of Resolution dated 04-08-2011 passed in board 69-70 meeting of M/s Amit Colonizers Ltd for MOU for property development. 7. 71-73 Copy of reply filed to ACIT, Circle-7 during assessment proceedings dated 31-10-2014. 8. Copy

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

45,140/- (790*76766) and excess share premium so generated of Rs.37,44,21,870/- (435067010-60645140) without any authenticity of sources being disclosed. Consequently, excess premium charged by assessee was considered as income from other sources under section 56(2)(vii) of the Act. 5. In view of the above, it appears that the assessment order passed

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

House property, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration. Return of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on 13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of “Purchase value of property less than the value as per stamp

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

45,000/- claimed on account of payment of Security and Guarantee payment made. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 9. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,91,000/- on account of application of income claimed for Shala Swasthya Karyakrama incurred. The disallowance so sustained

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

45,000/- claimed on account of payment of Security and Guarantee payment made. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 9. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,91,000/- on account of application of income claimed for Shala Swasthya Karyakrama incurred. The disallowance so sustained

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

DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. M/S. MAN PRAKSH TALKIES PVT. LTD, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

section 48. Thus, the income u/s 45(2) on this issue comes to Rs. 2,43,62,217/- which is added back to live assessee's income under the head business and profession. As against capital gain of Rs. 2,01,69,487/- shown by the assessee. 11. Ld. AO further observed that the assessee sold a shop

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S MAN PRAKASH TALKIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

section 48. Thus, the income u/s 45(2) on this issue comes to Rs. 2,43,62,217/- which is added back to live assessee's income under the head business and profession. As against capital gain of Rs. 2,01,69,487/- shown by the assessee. 11. Ld. AO further observed that the assessee sold a shop

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property as required u/s 54 and thus, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 on the sale value of the residential house constructed on such agricultural land. The ld. A/R submitted that without prejudice to above, in case even it is assumed that the residential house sold by the assessee on the agricultural land is not eligible

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