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

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).\nMoreover, it was not a case

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

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

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

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

50%\nshare), income from house property from 65, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura\nByepass and Krishna Towers, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur,\nincome from Long term capital gain, interest income from Bank, interest\nfrom parties and interest from NSC. It is noted that assessee filed his\noriginal return of 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

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands

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", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings