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 after dismantling an old house. Therefore, the assessee produced irrefutable evidence to prove that the assessee has 5 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT constructed a new house after demolition of old house. The ld. AR then referred to the lease deed in respect of Flat No. 101 which was taken by the assessee on rent for his residential purpose

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 before the date of filing the return of income is not conclusive.” Appellant wishes to mention that post-dated cheques issued for arising from an agreement attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as the balance amount of Rs. 84,27,600/-, paid by issuing post-dated cheques, had become legally payble by the appellant pursuant

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

Section 54B regarding investment in tubewell and others. In our considered opinion, for the purpose of carrying on the agricultural activity, tubewell and other expenses are for betterment of land and therefore, it will be considered a part of investment in the land and same is required to be accepted.” [CLC 49-50] 3.5 Attention is further drawn

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

BHAGIRATH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

property could be developed. B House on such agricultural land- To take care and living purpose we have incurred some expenses construction of House on such agricultural land. In such construction, it was one room, kitchen, cattle feed place, hall , Bathroom etc.. The cost was being my share was 60,198 in total in FY 2000-01. c Tarbandi

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

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

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54B to 54GB [PB 64]. 2. Ld. AO was, therefore, expected to examine a specific issue in depth. He issued two specific notices [PB 63-64, 51] for examining the claim of deduction u/s 54F. The assessee submitted relevant details to explain her deduction [PB 31-50 and 52-60], 3. The assessee substantiated her deduction with the help

VIVEK JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us. The Assessee Has Also Purchased A Residential Property On 23.05.2011 For A Purchase Consideration Of Rs. 30,00,000/- In The Name Of His Wife, Smt. Nikita Jain & Claimed Deduction U/S 54F Of The Act & Which Is In Dispute Before Us.

house 4 Shri Vivek Jain, Jaipur, vs. DCIT, Jaipur was purchased in the name of the assessee’s wife, deduction under section 54 was allowed. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT (165 ITR 228) wherein in the context of section

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

house and Rs. 1,63,830/- being registry charges). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full. 4. Registry charges not included in COA - Rs. 4,55,540/-: The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law and on the facts

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

house. The denial of deduction so claimed and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be allowed. 3. The Id. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

house. The denial of deduction so claimed and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be allowed. 3. The Id. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house in the name of wife for Rs. 7,20,000/- and claimed deduction under section 54B and 54F of the IT Act. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that once the assessee has produced the documents through which the assessee has made the investment then the claim of deduction under section 54B and 54F cannot be denied merely

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property but is considered as Agricultural income u/s 2(1A) and therefore, benefit of section cannot be availed on sale of agricultural land having constructed house thereon by ignoring Explanation 2 to section 2(1A). 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 54F while disallowing the claim of deduction

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)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments. unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

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

54B(2) and 54F(4) which refers to the due date of Section 139(1) and not Section 139(4) of the Act?"” 11 Renu Jain vs. ITO And the Hon’ble High Court referred to the decisions of other High Courts as under: “15. He has relied upon the following decisions: CIT v. Shri Jagtar Singh Chawla

SMT. GEETA DEVI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

property has been invested for purchase of residential house, the assessee would be entitled to benefit of section 54F of the Act irrespective of the fact that the transfer was not 5 ITA 351/JP/2018 Geeta Devi Vs ITO completed in all respect. In case of CIT vs. Sambandam Udaykumar 345ITR 389 the Hon’ble High Court has in para

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

property documents regarding purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the finding recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13, the fact of seizure of possession letter is mentioned. The Respondent AO simply mentioned that what was shared