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

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

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

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

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

section 148 of the Act.\nProcedures are hand-made of justice and intended to subserve and facilitate the\ncause of justice. Without expressing opinion on the merits of the quantum issues,\nit is observed that as a general rule, rightful tax payable should be determined\nand the alternatives provided under the law should be allowed full play CBDT

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

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

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

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground

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

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

71 TAXMAN 585 (BOM.). It will be useful to reproduce the held portion of the case: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1973-74 - Assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 99,326 described 'as plant relay out expenses' as revenue expenditure and ITO, after making enquiries in regard

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

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

71,897/- out\nof total expenses of Rs 11,45,980/- without considering the facts that it was\nnot claimed by the assessee appellant .\n8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1,03,03,005/-\nand

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. RISHIRAJ SINGH, JHALAWAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

71,70,816/-made by the AO under Section 68 is hereby deleted.\n6.5 Grounds No.5: The assessing officer has made the addition of Rs.48,38,133/-\non account of sundry creditors. This assessee has submitted that majority of the\nSundry Creditors are Government Authorities and such creditors have been paid\nin succeeding years through banking channels and were outstanding

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

71,897/- out\nof total expenses of Rs 11,45,980/- without considering the facts that it was\nnot claimed by the assessee appellant\n8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs 1,03,03,005/-\nand

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

house property which in this case will be\nRs.27,50,000. As a result, ground no 2 is allowed.”\n4.3 It is pertinent to mention that the Id. AR of the assessee submitted\nthat the Ld. CIT(A) clarified its order on 13/12/2024 in response to an\napplication filed by the assessee by restricting the 54F deduction by the\nA.O

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

71 (Delhi)/[2014] 267 CTR 305 (Delhi) 18-03-2014) 30 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR Accordingly this ground of appeal is hereby partly allowed.’’ 4.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the submitted that the depreciation is a statutory allowance and it is given since the value of assets are diminishing according