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

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property was to be clubbed in the husband’s income as per the provisions of section 64(1) (iv). Therefore, because of this reason also the assessee cannot be denied benefit of section 54F. In view of above the order of ld. PCIT is illegal, and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 5. Per contra, Ld. CIT (DR) stands

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.

section 54F of the Act. 2. Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of appeal or earlier. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee lady filed her return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 2,64

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)

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

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

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

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

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

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 of a property, other than an immovable property

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House property. In view of above we submit that the income be taken Rs. 375361/- as business Income not Rs. 536340.00. 8 Bhim Singh vs. DCIT Ground 4: That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on law and f acts in not allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 3,25,267.00 the Asssessee claimed

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

64, Section 93 or Section 94 (b) The income of a deductee being an association of person or a trust is assessable in the hands of members of the association of persons, or in the hands of trustee, as the case may be’ © the income from an asset held in the name of a deductee, being a partner

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

house of Smt.\nSunita Shekhawat were incorrectly relied upon. The ld. AR argued that the\nadditions were made without properly appraising the entire material available on\nrecord.\nIt was further submitted that the entries on the basis of which the additions were\nmade reflected loans that the assessee had taken and projections of the loan\namounts which could have been

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 under section 54 or 54F is to be considered till the date of filing return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai [2020] 118 taxmann.com 80/273 Taxman 146 (Mad.). 2. Dr. Kushagra Kataria v. Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 359/174

MANJEET SINGH DUGGAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

house property and the amount stated to be Rs. 1,77,69,740/-, and revised capital gains liability was determined at Rs 42,71,664. The deduction claimed under section 54 consisted of cost of acquisition of land of Rs. 1,47,64

SHANTI KUMAR SETHI AND SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

house property and other sources during the year under consideration. The 3 Shanti Kumar Sethi and Sons vs. ACIT ld. AO noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 6,58,86,500/- in the Bank account bearing No. 676005062750 of the ICICI Bank. In the assessment order the ld. AO has tabulated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

HOUSE' above\nthe same of the trustee which would have to be inferred to be in the capacity of\nthe trustee of the assessee society. On the contrary, we find no evidence placed on\nrecord by the CIT(E) establishing the utilization of the said property in the\npersonal capacity of Mr. Sangam Mishra as alleged, refuting the cogent material

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

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

house, hotels, motels, resorts etc. and other tourism related activities in which the land purchased by them between 18.12.2004 to 24.02.2006 was contributed to the ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur firm at cost as their capital contribution. Thereafter, to have the land in the name of the firm in the revenue records, various formalities

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

house property, and income from other sources. It has been submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that these additions have been made on an estimation basis without any concrete evidence or basis provided by the AO. The ld. AR further contended that the CIT(A), without any valid reasoning, has confirmed these additions. Submission made