VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

79,50,021/- and Rs,50,00,000/- by making investment of Rs. 97,82,780/- in house property and Rs. 50,00,000/- in specified bonds i.e. REC & NHAI bonds and taxable long term capital gain has been shown at Rs, 8,65,274/-” Para 3.5 page 4 and 5 of assessment order 11 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

house) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Whether where a residential property is jointly owned by two persons 20 DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR VS BHARAT MOHAN RATURI that would not preclude an assessee from claiming exemption under section 54F, as assessee would not be hit by proviso to section 54F being not an exclusive owner of residential property - Held, yes - Assessee sold

KAUSHLENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

79,960/- by the Stamp Duty Authority. Out of sale consideration of Rs. 14,75,000/- the assessee made investment of Rs. 7,48,000/- in the purchase of new residential house property in the name of his wife namely, Smt. Garima Singh, within the prescribed time limit as prescribed under the provisions of section

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

House Property' and ignoring the uncontroverted affidavit of the staff of the assessee proving that the basement and 2 Sh. Manohar Lal Chaudhary, Jaipur Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-06, Jaipur the room (kotari) were being used for the residence of the staff for last so many years. 1.2. Alternatively, because the Revenue authorities have grossly erred in not allowing

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

79,851.00. Your good self has mentioned that deduction w/s 54 F was available to assessee for Rs.11493250.00 is perhaps because of treating the assessee share only 25% in the new property where as the share of assessee in the property was 50%. This fact was brought to the notice of Assessing office at the time of assessment proceeding

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

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

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] which were passed on 20.12.2017 & 24.11.2018. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 are interrelated, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each appeal, therefore, these appeals were heard

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] which were passed on 20.12.2017 & 24.11.2018. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 176 & 177/JP/2025 for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2016-17 are interrelated, identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each appeal, therefore, these appeals were heard

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

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

79,515.00/- the ld. CIT(A) have not discussed in details & restrict the salary at Rs. 6,00,000.00/- thereby sustained the addition of Rs. 4,20,000.00/- based on revised return. Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Kota Vs. ITO, Kota 3. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law & facts in not allowing the loss in house property as claimed

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property as required u/s 54 and thus, assessee is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 on the sale value of the residential house constructed on such agricultural land. The ld. A/R submitted that without prejudice to above, in case even it is assumed that the residential house sold by the assessee on the agricultural land is not eligible

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” 43. The DVO therefore in his report has stated clearly that in respect of one of the property, 70% is still used for residential purposes and remaining 30% is under industrial shed (commercial) and in respect of second

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” 43. The DVO therefore in his report has stated clearly that in respect of one of the property, 70% is still used for residential purposes and remaining 30% is under industrial shed (commercial) and in respect of second

MANJEET SINGH DUGGAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

79,58,596/-, long term capital gain on sale of said property was computed at NIL. In the notes to the computation of income, it was shown as the land purchased on 07/6/2012 for Rs. 1.40 crores, registration charges paid of Rs. 11.00 lacs and it was further stated that the assessee will construct a house in the same land

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

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)

section 68 of the IT Act to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the IT Act. Further ld. AO noted that in case of other five case the addition of Rs. 79,00,000/- was made because the PAN number and address was not mentioned in the confirmation and the audit report filed, therefore, ld. AO treated as non-genuine transaction

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

properties and investment therein. The very initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 therefore was bad in law being based on incorrect facts. The Hon’ble ITAT is therefore requested to quash the assessment order and alternatively delete the addition of Rs, 9,60,750 In view of the position the additions made under section 69C is unlawful, illegal and deserves