SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

63)/4D/3/2005 dated 05/08/2007 has allowed that 40% of the area can be given on rent by the owner. However, in the present case, the assessee had given on rent the area approximately 47.57% which according to us is in close proximity of the specific range. The basis reason for treating such income as ‘income from other sources

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

property purchased by the appellant for claiming deduction u/s 54 of the Act was not 'worth occupying and inhabitable, therefore, it was held that the appellant was not entitled for deduction u/s 54 of the Act. (x) It may be mentioned that by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, the words ‘constructed a residential house' in section

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section 194C(7) of the IT Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) was justified in treating the rental income received from M/s Larsen and 2 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company Toubro Limited as ‘Income from house property’ as against of ‘income from business or profession’ taxed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

63,067 and his findings are as under:- “12. The submission of the A/R is considered carefully but not found convincing. It may be submitted that originally, housing loan of Rs. 11.50 lacs was obtained in the year 2002 from SBI for acquisition of house property under consideration. This loan was partly paid in different years

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

63,067 and his findings are as under:- “12. The submission of the A/R is considered carefully but not found convincing. It may be submitted that originally, housing loan of Rs. 11.50 lacs was obtained in the year 2002 from SBI for acquisition of house property under consideration. This loan was partly paid in different years

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

63,067 and his findings are as under:- “12. The submission of the A/R is considered carefully but not found convincing. It may be submitted that originally, housing loan of Rs. 11.50 lacs was obtained in the year 2002 from SBI for acquisition of house property under consideration. This loan was partly paid in different years

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36; (ixa) deposits with or investment in any bonds issued by a public company Mahima Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur vs. ACIT,(Exemption), Jaipur formed and registered in India with the main object of carrying on the business of providing long

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

63,816/-). Further, as seen from the computation of assessed income in the assessment order, it is noticed that the assessing officer allowed loss from House Property of Rs.1,50,000/-, Deduction u/s 80C - Rs.1,00,000/- and Deduction u/s 80CCF - Rs.20,000/-. However, as seen from copies of Form No.16 and Annexure to Form No.16 issued by M/s Reliance

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 of following documents: 3.1. Purchase Deed of new property 3.2. Detailed ledger for construction [PB 32-42] 3.3. Bank Statement evidencing payments

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

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

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

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

houses or independent floors with covered area much\nlarger than the covered area of the property at 25 Kautilya Marg and the comparison\nwas not justified.\n49. Respondent/Assessee further contended that the family members of the erstwhile\nChief Mutawalli, late Abdul Mueed Sahib, occupied a part of the premises at 25\nKautilya Marg, i.e. ground floor, with a covered area

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

property has been made through the Banking channel which is duly recorded in the Books of accounts. The appellant craves leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to amend or raise any other ground, cross objection, including any additional ground of appeal not set out in the appeal Memo.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

63[ section 12AA or section 12AB]: 64 [or] - 64 by way of transaction not regarded as transfer under clause (vicb) or - ((h) clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47.] Explanation-For the purposes of this clause,- (a) "assessable" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation 2 to subsection (2) of section 50C; "Yair market value