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

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

48[is greater than the cost of 49[the residential house] so purchased or constructed (hereafter in this section referred to as the new asset)], the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,000/- in the purchase of new residential house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,98,888/- (3,48,888 -1,50,000). 2.5 During the assessment proceedings, it was explained vide letter dated 5th December, 2011 that a part of the housing loan has been used for giving advances to other parties. The ld. AO himself accepted the fact that the housing loan was not fully

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,680 (50% of Rs. 4,66,97,360). During the year under consideration, on 14th Oct, 2016, the assessee sold VI. another immovable property, situated at Taru Chayya Nagar, being plot of land for Rs. 1,90,11,000 [PB 27-32]. The resultant Capital Gains were claimed exempt, on account of purchase of immovable property situated at Raja

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Housing Board and Jaipur Development Authority allotted the properties to allottees on Lease for a tenure of 99 years without transferring the ownership however, for all practical purposes, allottee is treated as owner of the property and after the term of 99 years, lessee by paying lease money gets the lease renewed. In fact, the same happened in the case

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion or treatment shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset." 27. We do not find that the income tax authorities and the Tribunal committed any error in applying Section

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

property' (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place purchased or has within a period of three years after that date constructed a residential house, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to Income

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

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

48, the amount recorded in the books of the firm shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. Section 50C does not override section 45(3). Therefore, in the present case deeming fiction of section 45(3) which is more specific to the assessee’s case is applicable and not the deeming fiction of 50C. In view

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

house property on 16.03.2010. The property was initially purchased by appellant’s father, Late Om Prakash Chugh in the year 1967. After the death of Mr. Om Prakash Chugh in 1980, the property devolved upon his legal heirs as under:- • Krishna Kumari (wife of Mr. Om Prakash Chugh) • Ajay Kumar (son of Mr. Om Prakash Chugh) • Vijay Kumar, the appellant

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

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

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

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property is extinguished by execution of an\nagreement to sell, the capital asset can be deemed to have been transferred.\nRelevant portion of Section 2(47), defining the word \"transfer\" is as under:\n'2(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes, -\n(i) xxxx xxxx\n(ii) the extinguishment of any rights therein; or......' 21.\nNow

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

48,830/-, whereas the assessing officer computed the gross salary at Rs.9,24,815/- (M/s Reliance Capital Ltd - Rs.5,60,999/- + M/s Reliance Commercial Finance Pvt Ltd - Rs.3,63,816/-). Further, as seen from the computation of assessed income in the assessment order, it is noticed that the assessing officer allowed loss from House Property of Rs.1,50,000/-, Deduction

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, or Income from other sources and the expression improvement shall be construed accordingly 1(2) 2[For the purposes of sections 48

SUSHILA BHARDWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hearing.”

House Property 1,76,45,500 (actual sale consideration – Rs. 1,45,45,500) (value adopted by registering authority – Rs. 1,76,45,500) Less : Indexed cost :- FY 1981-82 Plot 6,162/100* 1081 66,611 Indexed cost of construction 24,06,000 --------------- 24,72,611 ----------------- Capital Gain 1,51,72,889 ----------------- Hence the LTCG as worked

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] which were passed on 20.12.2017 & 24.11.2018. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 are interrelated, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each appeal, therefore, these appeals were heard