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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4 Smt. Rama Bajaj, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur Balance Interest to be allowed under Income from 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

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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

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

4] [In favour of assessee].”\n6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7).\n7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of\ntime (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh,\nand as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable\nmovement

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

4] [In favour of assessee].”\n6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7).\n7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of\ntime (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh,\nand as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable\nmovement

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

4] [In favour of assessee].”\n6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7).\n7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of\ntime (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh,\nand as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable\nmovement

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

4] [In favour of assessee].”\n6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7).\n7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of\ntime (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh,\nand as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable\nmovement

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

4] [In favour of assessee].”\n6.5 CIT vs Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) (DC 6-7).\n7.1 The reason behind such unintended mistake was that at the relevant point of\ntime (between the period from 2011-2016), the assessee was posted at Ladakh,\nand as the said period was quite hectic for him because of considerable\nmovement

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 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 consideration, i.e. 20.08.2014. 4. For better understanding of the issue, we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 54F of the Act as under: Section - 54F, Income-tax Act, 1961 - FA, 2024 Capital

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

house property and income from other sources. The returned income was accepted by the AO while framing the assessment under section 143(3) and hence assessee’s case does not fall in the category where the regular books of accounts are mandatory. The entries of investment in real estate were found recorded in the diary and in the absence

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

45) as per provisions of the Act. Incriminating material for the\npurposes of section 153A has to be necessarily construed to be in the nature of a\nprima facie evidence only (including a circumstantial evidence). Such evidence\nmay or may not turn out to be conclusive evidence after the verification/inquiry\nduring the assessment proceedings.\nExplaining the above discussion with reference

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

45: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

45 read with section 48 and section 50C of the Act. The decisions\nof the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held\nthat the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the\nfull amount invested in the new house property which

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

4) of section 22 of the Indian\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was\nissued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other\ndocuments has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such\nbooks of account or other documents as required by such

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

House property, Income from Business and\nprofession i.e. proprietor of M/s Shakti Steel and Partner in Firm\nTaj Petroleum and Income from other sources like Interest from\nSaving bank account. The assessee furnished the details such as\ncomputation of income, bank account details etc., with regard to\nissue of capital asset transferred to M/s Royal park Developers at\npoint

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

45) in respect of each of the assessment falling within such six assessment years that is required to be aggregated with the income already assessed in cases of completed assessments, more Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT so when section 132 comprehends action to search of a person in possession of undisclosed income or property. In those cases where assessments

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

45) in respect of each of the assessment falling within such six assessment years that is required to be aggregated with the income already assessed in cases of completed assessments, more Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT so when section 132 comprehends action to search of a person in possession of undisclosed income or property. In those cases where assessments