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

house property Rs. 1,00,37,910 and deduction u/s 54F Rs. 94,39,201 and LTCG income at Rs. Nil and total income of Rs 18,21,680/- 5 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI (Copy at Paper book page no 10 to 13). The assessment was completed under section 143(3) by the DCIT, Circle 7

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

property and had to be satisfied with such arrangement of "A House". In such case having invested in "A House" and declaring the same there was no case of prejudicial to interest of revenue and assessee made his intention full and clear at the outset. Ground No. 2:- Ld. Pr. CIT — 3, Jaipur erred in not accepting assessee's submission

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

7): Thus, the sale deed was also before the ld. AO through above submission. 1.2.2.4 Sale deed itself mention that some shops were part of the property: It is also relevant to note that apart from the report of the valuer even the sale deed mention the existence of shops in the house property in question. The relevant extracts

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

House Property”, under Section 24(b) of the Act. 7. The facts relating to the issue which are not in dispute

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7,48,000/- in the purchase of new residential house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10B.” In view of the above submissions, entire interest expense of Rs. 5,06,678/- may please be allowed under income from house property as well under income from other sources as above.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 3, the ld. AR submitted that during the year, the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 40,000/- in Bank

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

house property for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n11.3 Supporting case laws:\n11.3.1 A useful reference on this aspect can be made to the decision in ACIT vs.\nShri A.N. Annamalaisamy, 87 DTR 202 (Chnn. Trib) (DC 36-37) also supports\nthe contention. The relevant part in para 7 is reproduced as under:\n“7. We find

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

section, that is to say,— (i ) ………. (ii)……….." 7 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur 10. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the property being sold, referred to as original asset, is described as buildings or lands appurtenant thereto and being a residential house

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30th March, 2015, for the assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30th March, 2015, for the assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

property for the A.Y. 2008-09 within the meaning of provisions of sec. 147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore, permission is being sought for issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act.” Accordingly, the AO issued notices under section 148 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30th March, 2015, for the assessment year

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

Section 22 of the Act for treating the income under the head “income from house property”, therefore, it was rightly held that the assessee was also entitled for deduction U/s 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. 6.3 No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order to rebut or controvert the findings so recoded

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

Section 22 of the Act for treating the income under the head “income from house property”, therefore, it was rightly held that the assessee was also entitled for deduction U/s 24(a) and 24(b) of the Act. 6.3 No new facts or circumstances have been brought before us in order to rebut or controvert the findings so recoded