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

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

49,150/, wherein,\nneither such deduction was claimed nor loss from house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back

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

49,150/, wherein,\nneither such deduction was claimed nor loss from house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back

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

49,150/, wherein,\nneither such deduction was claimed nor loss from house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back

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

49,150/, wherein,\nneither such deduction was claimed nor loss from house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back

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

49,150/, wherein,\nneither such deduction was claimed nor loss from house property was claimed,\nas noted by the AO at pg. 3 para 4 of the impugned penalty order. This was the\nonly ROI acted upon by the AO for making the assessment. Having held the ROI\nfiled earlier as non-est, he could not fall back

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

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

property, considering the fact of higher valuation then the amount\nclaimed to have been spent. There is no reference neither in the assessment\norder nor in the remand report to any documents or other incriminating material\nfound during search like emails exchanged or whatsapp messages or\nunaccounted bills or cash payment documents etc. showing unaccounted\npayments or investment. The addition

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

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

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

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

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

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