JAGDISH WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

property. However, the assessee has failed to acquire the allotment of the said flat within a period of 2 years from the transfer of original asset or till the date of the order and, therefore, the assessee failed to purchase or construct the new residential house within the prescribed period under section 54

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

section 54 is applicable in cases where the assessee transfers a ‘residential’ property, deduction u/s 54F can be claimed where the assessee transfers ‘other than residential’ property. The provisions of the Act nowhere envisage a third situation which the ld. AO tried to work out. In the present case, once the erstwhile AO has found the house

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

Section 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the proceeds 3 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT invested in "a house" was to be made exempt and without prejudice u/s 54 "one residential house" was to be made exempt fully (i.e. even with investment in name of self and spouse - Ref: Laxmi Narayan

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 on 26.7.2012, which is prior to the date of furnishing of the return of income of the instant year. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no requirement to comply with the provisions of section 54

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

house in India, then exemption u/s 54 shall be available in respect of capital gain in accordance with clause (i) and (ii) thereof. Further, provisions of section 54(2) provide as under: Profit on sale of property

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

property”. There could be actual usage of the house for residential purposes either in terms of let out or being self-occupied and there could be potential usage of house for residential house, thus bringing in complete flexibility for the purposes of section 54

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

54 of the Act and has held as under:- “Evidently, relief is not available under the section in respect of capital gains arising on the transfer of any and every capital asset. Relief is available only if the capital asset is such that its income is chargeable under the head “income from house property

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 54 postulate purchase of new house by the assessee and does not contemplate that the house shall be purchased in the name of the assessee only. I further note that when the entire purchase consideration has been flown from the proceeds of the sale of the existing house of the assessee then the condition of investing the sale proceeds

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under section 139(1) only not under section

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

house property within the stipulated period of section 54(2) i.e., before the extended due date for return under section

SHRI AVNISH BANSAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied in both the cases is hereby directed to be deleted

house property by the assessee. There is thus proper disclosure as far as nature of property so purchased by the assessee is concerned in the return of income. On examination thereof, where the AO determines that the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F and not under section 54

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54 and 54EC of the Act, in respect of a residential house property purchased in the name of assessee

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

house property of Rs. 1,08,64,061/- as per provisions of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. Since

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property" at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund of Rs 54

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property" at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund of Rs 54

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property" at Rs 70,000/-thereby declaring net taxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund of Rs 54

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 talks about the transfer of a long term asset being building or land appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head income from house property. Therefore, in this case, the important question to be considered is whether there is a residential property or not on the land sold during the year

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

section 54 is available to an individual who has transferred a long term capital asset being a ‘residential House Property