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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also made a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as discussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law. Accordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also made a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as discussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law. Accordingly, the assessee is held

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

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also made a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as discussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law. Accordingly, the assessee is held

MANJU BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 50C are not applicable. It is evident that the property 74, SMS colony was purchased on 26.03.2010 in the form of land and the same was sold on 21.07.2010 after construction of boundary wall etc. as mentioned in regd. Sale deed .The second property 91, R.K.Puram was purchased on 24.06.2010 which after construction of complete residential house

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also made a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as discussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law. Accordingly, the assessee is held

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd [PB 93- 104] 5.3. Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] Details of payments made to seller and source thereof [PB 81] 5.4. Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing direct payments to Bank Statements of all the joint owners evidencing

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

House property at Rs 70,000 as well as concealing of particulars of interest income of Rs 1,21,350/-. In the instant case the assessee has also made a deliberate attempt by making a claim of excessive deduction as discussed above and held not allowable at all as prescribed under the Law. Accordingly, the assessee is held

SHRI VIKAS SONGARA,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Him On Merit By Simply Stating That Assessee Has 2 Sh. Vikas Songara, Ajmer Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ajmer

house property u/s 54F is Rs.15,74,060/- as against Rs.11,70,890/- considered by the AO. Both these facts are not denied by the lower authorities. Thus, when the entire facts are narrated in the application u/s 154, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee only for the reason that assessee

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)

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. KULWANT KAUR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 54 of the Act is applicable and if there is no residential property then deduction u/s 54F of the Act would be available. As, there is no dispute about investment of the sale proceed by the assessee in a residential property. Therefore, it is my considered view that on the basis of plethora of evidences produced both during assessment

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.”

74,319/- Claimed by the assessee _____________ Long Term Capital Gain Rs. 7,25,681/- -------------------- Though the assessee challenged the said action of the AO, however, even during the proceedings before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee did not file any documentary evidence and consequently the addition made by the AO was upheld by the ld. CIT (A). Even before

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 or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with section 139 (1) of the Act, as the due time would be under section 139(1) only not under section 139(4) of the Act." 15. Tribunal, as a matter of fact, has accorded one more opportunity to the appellant

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.

74. Power of Government to make rules (1) The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act- (a) As to the authority on which money may be paid from the Trust fund; (b) For prescribing the fees payable for a copy of or extracts from the assessment list under section 35 or section 73; (bb) for prescribing standards

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.

74. Power of Government to make rules (1) The State Government may make rules consistent with this Act- (a) As to the authority on which money may be paid from the Trust fund; (b) For prescribing the fees payable for a copy of or extracts from the assessment list under section 35 or section 73; (bb) for prescribing standards

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 in the name of wife Smt. Deepawali Agarwal and sister-in-law Smt. Santosh Agarwal which is not allowable (iii) investment is done after the due date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139 (iv) documentary evidence in support of claim of stamp duty of Rs.4,74,161/- is not furnished and the penalty proceedings u/s 271F

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

House Property\n8,17,320\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\nTotal\n58,17,320\nThe action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the\ncase. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said of Rs. 58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter