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)

property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in 99(sub- section (1) of section 49, by the previous owner, but does not include any expenditure which is deductible in computing the income chargeable under the head Interest on securities, Income from house

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

49,743/- is being paid from the month of April, 2008 onwards can have no adverse bearing on the claim of the assessee. 2.7.4 The ld. AO’s allegation that appellant has shown rental income of Rs. 36,000/- for the whole year for one portion of the house property is also irrelevant because as mentioned earlier the appellant

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

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above in the case of Surendra Sharma there are a number of decisions of similar nature such

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

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

49,54 and 57 of the Paper Books. He has further submitted that some of the loans are in the joint name of the assessee and his son and the bank statement of the son of the assessee also produce to prove the construction activity. The ld. AR has further contended that the payments were made to M/s Bansal Trader

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

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

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

SHRI UMESH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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

house property in the name of wife but the investment was made by the assessee from his bank account as it is evident from the bank account statement at page 49 of the paper book then the claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act cannot be denied on the ground of investment made in the name of wife

YOGESH DAS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house property' at Rs. 3,27,965/- and Income from other sources' at Rs. 10,40,557/- and it has also computed long term capital loss of Rs. 5,30,681/-on account of sale of two immovable properties (sold on 05.12.2012 and 25.03.2013) during the year under consideration. (ii) On the basis of the reasons as reproduced

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

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

section 50C of the IT\nAct 1961, and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 84,44,842 against the actual sale\nconsideration of Rs.49,00,000. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified,\narbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the\nsale consideration at Rs. 49

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

49,100/- 13,89,100/- House 31.03.2015 Investment in Const. of New 19,00,000/- 23,89,100/- House It was submitted that the actual consideration received by the assessee was invested in purchase of plot and construction of residential house before due date of filing of return on 31.03.2014 as per provisions of section

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

49,100 13,89,100 house 31/03/2015 Investment in Const. of New 19,00,000 23,89,100 house 3]It is submitted that the provision of section 50C has not applicable in the case of the assessee as entire actual sale consideration received by the assessee was invested in the construction of new house. The meaning of full value

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

49 taxmann.com 513 (Madras)\n“...Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value consideration (Reference to Valuation\nOfficer) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where assessee made an objection\nwith regard to adoption of market value under section 50C(1), Assessing Officer\nshould have referred valuation of capital asset

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

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

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

49 taxmann.com 513 (Madras) “...Head Notes - Section 50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Reference to Valuation Officer) - Assessment year 2007-08 - Whether where assessee made an objection with regard to adoption of market value under section 50C(1), Assessing Officer should have referred valuation of capital asset to Valuation