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

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

71,628/-. 10. Taking up the alternate plea of the assessee that the interest expenditure is allowable under Section 24(b) of the Act, we have gone through the provisions of law in this regard. Section 24(b) reads as under:- Deductions from income from house property

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

House property Rs. 31,780/- as discussed in para no. 6 Add : Disallowance u/s 14A as discussed in para Rs. 73,332/- no. 7 Add : Disallowance u/s 80G as discussed in para Rs. 2,685/- no. 8 Add : Addition of unexplained Cash found Rs. 32,69,455/- during search as discussed in para no. 9. Add : Addition of on account

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

71,440/-. It is relevant to note that the land sold was in the name of appellant-assessee, while the land purchased was in the name of his son and daughter-in-law. 7. A bare reading of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act does not suggest that assessee would be entitled to get exemption for the land purchased

SH. SANJAY BAIRATHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

house property. D.—Profits and gains of business or profession. E.—Capital gains. F.—Income from other sources. c) Chapter V deals with inclusion in the total income of an assessee, income of other persons and Chapter VI deals with aggregation of the total income and set off or carry forward of losses. Section 69B falls in chapter

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

section 71(2) and 71(3A) of the Act stated that the beneficial the provisions as applicable should be applied and thereby the claim of the assessee to seek the adjustment of loss under the head from income from house property

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

71,57,170/-. 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

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

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 is available only to an individual or HUF. ii) The asset transferred should be a long-term capital asset, being a residential house property. iii) Within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within

SHRI BALVEER RAM,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 is available only to an individual or HUF. ii) The asset transferred should be a long-term capital asset, being a residential house property. iii) Within a period of one year before or two years after the date of - transfer of old house, the -taxpayer should - acquire- another residential house or should construct a residential house within

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

71 of the Act because the business of the assessee had not commenced. The Madras High Court (see [1985] 156 ITR 542) categorically held: "In this case, admittedly, the borrowing has not been made exclusively and solely for the purpose of earning interest in which case alone it should be taken as an income which should be deducted from

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

property to "B" for a consideration of RS. 100 crore and receive only a consideration of 1.00 crore and it is mentioned in the transfer instrument that balance of consideration would he paid after 20 years then no tax can be levied on such balance consideration of Rs. 99.00 crore which has not been received as per the contention

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property by executing 3 sale deeds dt. 28.09.2012 (PB 59-67), dt. 29.04.2013 and dt. 11.02.2014 for Rs.40 lacs plus stamp duty expenditure of 15 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 Rs.2,34,500/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.7,77,000/- (PB 31-34) on construction, section 50C is not applicable as held by various decisions including

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)

71 of the Act, where there is no income under the head capital gain, set off against his income is not allowed. Here, the capital gain was calculated by the AO to the tune of Rs.57,50,287/-. Moreover, the return of income was filed after the due date invoking the provisions of section u/s 139(3). Hence, I find

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

MANJU BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

71 of the Paper Book. The first property 74, SMS Colony, was purchased by the assessee vide Regd. Purchase deed dated 26.03.2010 for Rs.400000/- (PBP-52-59) and second property 91, R.K. Puram was purchased vide Regd. Purchase deed dated 24.06.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-(PBP 66-70), which after certain construction thereon have been sold during the relevant previous

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

property has been claimed by way of purchase of two plots of land bearing plot no. C-128 & C-129 situated at C- Block, Vardhman Nagar, Jaipur costing Rs 48,05,927/- and carrying out construction thereon costing Rs 5,71,820/-. The return of income was selected for limited scrutiny for the purposes of verifying the assessee’s claim

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

71 permits set off of loss from one head against income from another head of income as enumerated in 13 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. section 14. It is already held earlier that income assessable under section 68 cannot be assessed under any particular head of income including income from other sources under section 56. In this view of the matter