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

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

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

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

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House\nproperty, Capital Gain and other sources during the year under consideration.\nReturn of Income for the year under appeal was filed by assessee on\n13.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.1,19,33,590/- (APB 1). Case of\nassessee was selected for Limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of\n“Purchase value of property less than the value

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

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

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

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

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property\n8,17,320\n\nIncome from Other Sources\n23,00,000\n\nTotal\n58,17,320\n\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.\n\n10. The appellant craves his rights

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

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

House property. In view of above we submit that the income be taken Rs. 375361/- as business Income not Rs. 536340.00. 8 Bhim Singh vs. DCIT Ground 4: That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on law and f acts in not allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 3,25,267.00 the Asssessee claimed