RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,000/- and the entire capital gain of Rs.1,89,79,851/- was claimed as deduction u/s section 54F of the Act. It was observed that deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,14,93,260/- was available to the assessee and excess capital gain of Rs.74,86,601/- was taxable. Therefore, it is factually apparent that

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

house property will not be eligible for carry forward following the same approach adopted in the assessment order. This issue is interlinked and emanating from the revised computation submitted by the appellant to the assessing officer and also to the findings of the assessing officer in the assessment order and it can be said that the depreciation was overlooked inadvertently

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.

property", other than the new asset, the amount of capital gain arising from the transfer of the original asset not charged under section 45 on the basis of the cost of such new asset as provided in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be income chargeable under

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property Rs. 1,84,800/- Income from Short term Capital Gain Rs. 5,43,882/- Income from other sources Rs. 72,282/- Add: Long term Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

73,111/-. Further against interest of Rs.6,38,837/- paid to Sangita Tambi, interest receipt is Rs.32,21,245/-. Therefore, even if the loss claimed under the head income from other sources is disallowed, the same be allowed in computing the income from house property. 3. The assessing officer held that claim of interest under the head income from house

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

73,111/-. Further against interest of Rs.6,38,837/- paid to Sangita Tambi, interest receipt is Rs.32,21,245/-. Therefore, even if the loss claimed under the head income from other sources is disallowed, the same be allowed in computing the income from house property. 3. The assessing officer held that claim of interest under the head income from house

MANJEET SINGH DUGGAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

property so purchased by the appellant was a residential house eligible for deduction under section 54 of the Act. As far as claim of Rs 30,05,000 is concerned, nothing has been brought on record which demonstrate that such cost has been incurred towards any refurbishment/renovation of the residential house so purchased. In the result, sole ground

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

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

Property Income. In view of this facts, addition of Rs. 31,780/- is hereby deleted. Assessee’s Gr. No. 1 to 1.1 stands allowed.” Thus the ld. CIT (A) has given the finding that the ALV of the last year was determined for the entire house whereas the assessee has occupied part of the house for his residential purposes during

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

house property’. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses against the total

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

73,744/-, the AO referred to the return filed by the assessee for A.Y 2010-11 wherein the assessee has shown rental income of Rs 96,000/- from property situated at 9 Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Kota Vs. ITO, Kota Kota Junction, Kota, rental income of Rs. 1.2 lakh from House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan and rental income

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

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 Property before the due date of filing of return as per section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31-7-2012. Based on these observations, AO issued a show-cause that why Rs. 1, 19, 45,236/- should not be taxed under the head "Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)". 4. during the course of hearing, assessee relied upon

NIRMAL KUMAR DUGAR , JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal.

house property and income from other sources, and as such, the assessee has rightly claimed the 6 Nirmal Kumar Dugar, Jaipur set off. In the written submissions, learned AR for the appellant has made reference to the decision in the case of Snowtex Investment Limited v. PCIT, Central 2, Kolkatta, CA No.4483 of 2019. Copy of the turnover

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

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

houses, hotels, motels and resorts, etc & other tourism related activities. In view of above and the specific definition of transfer given in section 2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320 1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000 40 ITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018 ITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024 2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee. 3. The assessee