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

54F on purchase of two residential house property which is not allowable and as per provisions of section 54F of the IT Act, 1961, assessee

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F was claimed by the assessee in respect of purchase of property and construction of residential house on the said

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Income tax Act, the purchase of a new residential house has to be purchased by the assessee. It is not specifically required under the law that a new residential house property

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 where the construction was stated to have made belongs to the mother of the assessee Smt. Thakri Devi Chawla. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the present appeal. 2 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT 3. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee has referred to the provisions of section 54F

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property) was\ninvested, before the due date of return filing, in the purchase of Residential House\nNo. 19, Jaihind Nagar Ist, Gram Rampura, Baran Road, Tehsil Ladpura, Kota.\nHence, full exemption under Section 54F

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

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.

house property was constructed by the assessee, rather she renovated the existing one and the construction started on 12.09.2013, i.e. before the sale of capital asset under consideration, i.e. 20.08.2014. 4. For better understanding of the issue, we are reproducing herein below the provisions of section 54F

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

54F of the Act. It is not in dispute that what has been sold is a non-residential property and the assessee is eligible for deduction Shri Avnish Bansal & Shri Ashutosh Bansal, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur in respect of fresh investment in house property. While the assessee has by mistake claimed deduction under section

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.”

property before filing the return of income, must necessarily be deposited in an account duly notified by the Central Government, so as to be exempted. [Para 6(o)] 34 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO Further, section 54F(4) specifically provides that the amounts which have not been invested either in purchase/construction of house

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property situated at Raja Park in the immediately preceding year, under section 54F of the IT Act, 1961. VII. Section 54F provides that if any long term capital asset (except residential house

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 50C of the Act. The decisions\nof the Coordinate Benches as referred supra support the case of the\nassessee. Respectfully following the orders of jurisdictional ITAT, it is held\nthat the appellant shall be eligible for deduction u/s 54F in respect of the\nfull amount invested in the new house property

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property…….". As per section 54F of the Act, individual or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is entitled to claim an exemption

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

property. The precise observation of the Coordinate Bench was as under: “5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Though the assessee in the grounds of appeal has claimed the deduction under section 54F, however, we find that the assessee has invested Rs. 24,00,000/- in purchase of new house

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 54F of the Act. For claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act, the assessee has to construct a residential house one year before or two years after the date on which the capital asset was transferred. In this case, after transfer of the capital asset, the assessee has purchased 196.144 cents of land and constructed a house admeasuring

VIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 2. The Assessee Has Also Raised Additional Ground As Under:- “1. That Principal Commissioner Has Not Accorded Proper Satisfaction In Terms Of Section 151 For Reopening Of Assessment U/ 148.” 3. Since, The Additional Ground Is Legal In Nature & Was Raised In Respect Of The Approval Granted By The Pr. Cit U/S 151 Of The Act

property during the year under consideration and claimed the deduction U/s 54F of the Act in respect of the cost of the construction. The AO denied the claim of deduction U/s 54F of the Act on account of addition made in the existing residential house of the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before

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

property by opening an FDR with Bank of Rajasthan (Now ICICI Bank) on 20 January 2011 i.e. well before the due date of filing the return under section 139 3 Renu Jain vs. ITO of the Act for AY 2011-12. Later on, the Appellant came to know that as per the provisions of section 54F, the FDR is required

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on the date of sale. 9. Point by point rebuttal is as under: A. Amount not deposited in capital Gain Account Scheme A1. Section 54F

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

property in 2015 disregarded the same and directed the assessee to produce the contractor who constructed the house. Assessee tried his best but since has no control over the contractor failed to produce him and ld. AO disallowed the exemption claimed by assessee u/s 54F. In this regard, it is submitted that non appearance of contractor before AO should