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.

property and just because builder could not complete construction of residential Delhi ITA No:- house, claim of exemption under 2692/Del/2018 section 54F of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied 3 When assessee invested a sum in Principal CIT Vs purchase of land, which was invested Smt. Charumathi after date of sale of original asset and Seshadri IN THE before

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

house property, considering the fact of higher valuation then the amount\nclaimed to have been spent. There is no reference neither in the assessment\norder nor in the remand report to any documents or other incriminating material\nfound during search like emails exchanged or whatsapp messages or\nunaccounted bills or cash payment documents etc. showing unaccounted\npayments or investment

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

LAL SINGH NADERIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

house property u/s 54 Rs. 36,61,600/-” The AO noticed that as per sale deed the stamp valuation authority had assessed the value of the property at Rs. 5,76,54,492/- for the purpose of stamp duty. However, this was finally assessed when the assessee went in appeal before the Additional Collector (Stamp

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

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

77,\n85,000/. There is no mention of either the amount is paid or is payable.\nLd Assessing officer computed the cash payment at Rs 3, 42, 20,375/\nwhich does not correspond to the entries made in any of the\ndocuments referred to by him.\nxí.\nxii.\nxiii.\nxív.\nxv.\nxvi.\nDeemed transfer under the provisions of section

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

house property, other sources which had had already been shown and taxed under these income separately in the respective heads vide ITR itself. Thus the ld. AO taxed the income of Rs. 11,56,302/- twice or double one under the business income and second under the respective heads or sources of income. Only due to accounting or entries

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

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

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

House Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration. Equating

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

property. The AO is directed to also consider the\nsubmissions made by the assessee, the legal position, and the valuation report, and\nthereafter make additions, if any, required. The matter is set aside to the file of the\nAO for de novo verification of all factual aspects. The assessee is also directed to\ncooperate fully during the reassessment proceedings

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n40\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were made by\nthe ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee

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 TDS Rs. 8,77

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property. 14. Regarding investment in shop at Rs.22,81,000/-, out of sale proceeds of agricultural land, the claim of exemption for commercial property investments like shop does not come under the purview of section 54. There has to be investment in agricultural land within two 6 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO years after the date of such

SUSHILA BHARDWAJ,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hearing.”

section 54 by the appellant with respect to the both the units numbered 1460A and 1460B is allowed. The ground of appeal raised is allowed.” 5. As the assessee did not find any favor from the finding of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the cost of construction claimed by the assessee the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this

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)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares