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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Income tax Act. Consequently, no capital gain was chargeable under the head Long term capital gain on sale of above immovable property. Despite

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on thedate of sale. C1.lt was categorically submitted before Id. PCIT that assessee was having only one residential property. The property situated at Raghunandan Vihar was just a plot of land. The same was let out to the neighbor for storing in building material. Copy of Conveyance Deed being Gift Deed in favour of the assessee was duly

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

65,000/- in respect of property no. 462, Ekta Block, Mahaveer Nagar, Jaipur whereas for the preceding year the assessee has declared the annual rent of the same property at Rs. 1,10,400/-. Accordingly, the AO made an addition by considering ALV of the property at Rs. 1,10,400/- which was declared by the assessee in the preceding

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 WADHWANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 54 of the Act, the appellant has either to purchase or construct a residential house property within two or three years, as the case may be, from the date of sale of the subjected property sold by the appellant on 29.09.2010. However, in the instant case under consideration, the appellant has not constructed any property even almost after

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. 1,47,64,740/- and expenses incurred on the property till 30/9/2012 amounting to Rs. 30,65

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, grounds no

65 Years old. 5 ITA No. 261 & 262/JP/2017 CO. No. 20 & 21 /JP/2017 ACIT, Kota vs. Bhim Singh, Kota The same deserves to be allowed.” 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the issues as raised in the various grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue for both the years are covered by the decisions

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

House No. 12/493, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. During assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to produce lease agreement for the same property but he did not produce lease agreement. However, the same has been furnished during rescinding proceedings, and it was submitted that this property is in front of Indira Nagar, Lucknow, school of the trust. The contention

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

65. In relation to Ground No. 9, the assessee has challenged the lump-sum addition of Rs. 58,17,320 made under various heads of income, such as income from salary, income from 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

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

65,209/- and loss of Rs.11,60,369/- including depreciation of Rs.1,00,525/- for the year under consideration. The assessee society has also declared sale proceeds of building amounting of Rs.61,00,000/- and declared capital loss of Rs.50,450/- under this head. 4 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 3.1 The ld. AO noted that details were called

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

House property : 32,09,810 Purchase consideration as per Registry 30,00,000 Add : Registry Charges 2,09,810 ------------- Taxable LTCG 33,65,628 The ld. AO did two corrections in the above said computation filed by the appellant i.e. He had adopted sale consideration in terms of section

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

property admittedly and claimed the exemption u/s 54 in the A.Y. 2016-17. It is not the case that the assessee has claimed the exemption u/s 54F in the A.Y. 2018-19. Copy of sale deed of flat sold by the assessee on dt.07.04.2015, copy purchase deed of flat purchase from M/s Sana Land and Developers, copy of allotment, copy

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house property and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry more particularly when the detailed questionnaire was issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings and in this regard the assessee had also furnished all the details alongwith decision of Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. vs CIT (supra). Therefore, it cannot be presumed that there was lack

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property has been properly shown in the\nreturn of income for the year under consideration.\nii. As it has already been stated in Paral as above that assessee earned\nrental income and interest income, therefore not liable for maintain any\ncash book and bank book. Hence such cash book and bank book is not\navailable with the assessee.\niii

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

house property from 65, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass and Krishna Towers, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, income from Long term capital gain, interest income from Bank, interest from parties and interest from NSC. It is noted that assessee filed his original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 23-08-2011 for the AY 2011- 12 declaring total

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let57 and the actual rent received or receivable57 by the owner in respect thereof is in excess

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

House Property” (PB 23-47) and considered by the AO as under:- Assessment Year Rent from flat at Tilak Nagar shown in returns 2004-05 80,628/- 2005-06 87,180/- 2006-07 92,638/- 2007-08 99,582/- 2008-09 113,933/- 2009-10 103,193/- 3. From the above facts it is clear that assessee held this flat

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65,470/-. Further the Addl. DIT (Inv.) Jaipur vide letter no. 587 dated 13.03.2018 has informed that an investigation report was received from DIT (Inv.) Chandigarh alongwith list of beneficiary. 18 M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota. As per the information, the assessee has ltaken accommodation entry of Rs. 4,55,43,635/- during the F.Y. 2010-11 from Shree