KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

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 sold by the assessee was a Residential House fit for residence of a family. 3. It is submitted that the assessee relies on the decision by jurisdictional ITAT in the case of - Seema Singh Beniwal v. DCIT (2017) 88 taxmann.com 359 (ITAT –Jaipur) ( Copy at case law paper book page no. 1 to 5) - in which

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition, made by ld. AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A). ” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, the ld. submitted that the assessee has incurred interest expenses

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 which is fully constructed house since, the last more 20 years. The said constructed house was owned by the mother of the assessee namely Smt. Thakri Devi Chawla and was gifted by the mother vide gift deed dated 26.07.2013 whereas the assessee has claimed to have constructed house in the year 2011-12 which is contrary to the facts

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed his original

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

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

57,170/-. The Assessing Officer made assessment U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on 23/12/2016 at total income of Rs. 6,84,93,110/- and made addition ITA 769/JP/2017_ 2 Dr. Asha Mathur Vs. ACIT of Rs. 1,13,35,940/- by observing that the assessee has constructed more than one residential house

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 57(iii) and it was held that when the assessee borrowed the funds for business, the interest earned on short term deposit of such funds cannot be allowed as deduction. 19. We have carefully gone through the judgment of the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd. (supra). The assessee company invested its paid-up share capital

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

57 of the Paper Books. He has further submitted that some of the loans are in the joint name of the assessee and his son and the bank statement of the son of the assessee also produce to prove the construction activity. The ld. AR has further contended that the payments were made to M/s Bansal Trader for construction

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)

57,319/- (carried forward) as disclosed by the assessee in the original return. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the plea of the assessee that there was no claim of depreciation against income from house property and hence, no double deduction of depreciation

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

house property. Ld. AO that of the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the interest paid to partners was not in accordance with the law. As the ld. AO made the disallowance of claim of the assessee as per provision of section 57

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property. Ld. AO that of the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that the interest paid to partners was not in accordance with the law. As the ld. AO made the disallowance of claim of the assessee as per provision of section 57

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property and deduction of Rs.4,50,000/- was claimed u/s 24(a). It was held by ld. PCIT that as per the provision of section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory, if not chargeable under the head “Business & profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “Income

SHRI NARESH AGARWAL,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned income from above said sources as mentioned. After examining relevant details/documents and after discussion returned income of Rs. 12,05,000/- as declared by the assessee is hereby accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income

SHRI NARESH AGARWAL,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned income from above said sources as mentioned. After examining relevant details/documents and after discussion returned income of Rs. 12,05,000/- as declared by the assessee is hereby accepted. Assessed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Income

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by NeAC, Delhi. 2 Smt. Irvind Kaur Gujral vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,22,442/- under the head income from house property in respect

SHRI UMESH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

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

57 meters. Thus, the length of the boundary wall is correctly mentioned based on the dimension of the plot as 18*10.50 meters. Once the boundary wall was in existence at the time of sale though the correct description of the boundary wall is not available being the height of the boundary wall and thickness of the boundary wall, then

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n22,25,471\nTOTAL\n57,42,791\nThe action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 57,42,791.\nThe assessee craves his rights to add, amend or alter