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 54F of the IT Act, 1961 to half value of investment made in one residential house property. As sale consideration reported in the registered sale deeds executed for purchase of immovable properties situated at flat No. 702, Princess Park, Sector-86, Faridabad is more than the same consideration reported in sale deed executed for purchase of flat

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property and deduction claimed under section 54F of the IT Act. The assessee produced all the relevant details, documents as well as books of account in support of the claim of deduction under section 54F which was duly examined and verified by the AO and only when the AO was satisfied with the claim of assessee, the assessment order

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

54F to calculate deduction in cases of mix house property as the section itself speaks of deduction on the basis of the house property either being residential or other than residential. The ld. AO on his own tried to apply a new mechanism i.e. to take proportionate exemption on the basis of cost of property, which do not find

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) 147 of the Act, merely on the technical ground that the investment was made by the appellant in the purchase of new residential house property, in the name of his wife Smt. Garima Singh who herself is a separate assessee and having separate source of income; and thus denied the benefit 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 has been claimed.\n9. In support of cost of Rs.5,50,000/- incurred towards improvement of the\nproperty, the AR of the assessee invited our attention

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3). SUBMISSIONS 1. Ld. PCIT has not disputed the following points: 1.1. The assessee sold a long term capital asset which was not in the nature of residential house property. 1.2. The assessee made investment, within stipulated time, in a residential house property. 1.3. The assessee was fulfilling all the conditions as contained in section 54F

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.

54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

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.”

3 years from the date of sale of the capital asset, is now subject to the provisions of section 54F(4). Thus, where the consideration received on sale of capital asset is not appropriated (where purchase was earlier than sale) or utilized (where purchase is after the sale) then the same would be subject to the charge of capital gain

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

3) Further, assessee can also claim exemption, if the capital gain is utilized within the time limit u/s 139(4) even though nothing is deposited in the capital gain account within time limit u/s 139(1) as first limb of section 54(2) states merely section 139 and does not specify any sub section thereof. This conclusion can be validly

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

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

house property which is\nagain not been disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under\nsection 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which\nhas been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has\nbeen deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the I.T. Act, 1961 though the assessee has not constructed any house property within 3 years from the date of agreement i.e. 19.11.2007; 3. allowing the benefit of section

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 Rs. 1,84,800/- Income from Short term Capital Gain Rs. 5,43,882/- Income from other sources Rs. 72,282/- Add: Long term Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded

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

house was not made within the stipulated period nor deposited in capital gain account, therefore, the A.O. has correctly denied exemption U/s 54 of the Act. The ld DR has further contended that the assessee has not claimed deduction U/s 54F of the Act before the A.O., therefore, there is no reason to allow the same even though claim before

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F being making investment in residential house property and holding the same for atleast 3 years were fulfilled. 8 I.T.(I.T.)A. No. 64/JP/2021

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

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

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

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F on purchase of the house property which was made after due date of filing of return u/s 139 and the applicability of section 50C ignoring that all these 3