KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

house property by applying notional rent on the closing stock. 4. In respect of Additional Ground and Ground No. 1, before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the objection raised by the assessee was not disposed. In the objections filed vide letter dated 17.11.2017 the following issues were raised :- “that the assessment of the assessee

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

house property by applying notional rent on the closing stock. 4. In respect of Additional Ground and Ground No. 1, before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the objection raised by the assessee was not disposed. In the objections filed vide letter dated 17.11.2017 the following issues were raised :- “that the assessment of the assessee

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 23(1)(c) are fully applicable to the facts of the case. The property of the assessee meets these conditions. The assessee has disclosed rent from letting out the part of the property namely Ramas Janki Vihar. Such rent has been disclosed at Rs. 2,64,500/-. Copies of rent agreements are available on paper book page

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections as follows: 9 Smt. Rama Bajaj, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur S. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Interest to be allowed under Income from 1. Other Sources 2,74,705/- Balance Interest to be allowed under Income 2. from House Property a) Rented House Property- 81,973/- b) SOP House Property- 1,50

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

property as Residential House and it was only a Vacant Plot of land. 10. Affidavit of neighbor : The assessee also filed before CIT(A), one affidavit dated 10.11.2021 (copy at Paper book page no. 86 to 88) of neighbor of the assessee Mr Indrajeet Bhattacharya, who has stated on oath that the assessee had demolished small construction on his plot

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

50,09,160/- on 30.07.2014, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The AO arrived the findings that the assessee derives income from gems stone business, rental and interest income. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the 9 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT assessee's wife. This view was disapproved

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section\n54F of the Act, in respect of the entire capital gain arising from this transaction.\nThe entire sale consideration of Rs.57,00,000/- (Rs.51,50,000 against purchase of\nnew property and Rs.5,50,000/- against cost of improvement of new property) was\ninvested, before the due date of return filing, in the purchase of Residential House

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) vide order dated 1st Aug, 2019. Returned Income was accepted. XI. Chronology of events is as under: Particulars Date A.Y. PB 21st Purchase of Residential House Property Dec, 2016- 33-65 2015 17 15th Execution of Memorandum of Understanding as Jan, 2016- 6-7 per which assessee’s share was 50

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house built upon the land, therefore, the AO denied the claim of deduction under section 54 of the IT Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. The ld. CIT (A) has also considered the entire property being agricultural land in terms of section 2(1A) which defines Agricultural income

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 purchased by the appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act was not 'worth occupying and inhabitable, therefore, it was held that the appellant was not entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. (x) It may be mentioned that by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, the words ‘constructed a residential house' in section

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

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property'. The ld. CIT(A) has further held that preceding year case i.e A.Y. 2014-15 was also assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act where the rent income received from the same tenant has been accepted by the department. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a speaking and reasoned order discussing all the facts and circumstances as well

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

section itself under the facts and circumstances of the case. The addition of Rs. 2,50,00,003/- may please be deleted. 4. The assessee may please be permitted to raise more/additional grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is HUF and filed e-return of income on 21.07.2014 declaring total income

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” From the above observations of the Valuation Officer, it is clear that he has clearly admitted the fact that a major portion of the subject property is being used for residential purposes. Also, he has not alleged that

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

50,000/-, (copy of sale deed at APB 15-16) of which assessee’s share was Rs.5,78,571/-. Out of the sale consideration received assessee had invested in construction of house property and accordingly claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. These facts were disclosed in return of income filed in response to notice u/s 4 ITA 49/JP/2018_ Gulab

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)

50,000/- which was appearing in Form-16 issued by Reliance Capital Ltd. Your honor’s attention is invited to Form 16 issued by Reliance Capital Ltd.(Page-14-18 of PB) It is not a case that the Loss from house property has been claimed in excess. As a matter of fact, the loss from house property on account