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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house property at Rs. 2,33,107/- after claiming deduction u/s 24(a) of Rs. 99,903/-. The assessee has declared net profit at Rs. 9,133/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 on total turnover of Rs. 1,14,067/-/ Besides, the assessee has declared interest income at Rs. 3,69,437/- under the head income from other

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

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

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/- Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the head Income from House Property

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property and not a housing loan in terms of section 24(b) of the IT Act. As per capital account and details of payment U/s 80C

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property and not a housing loan in terms of section 24(b) of the IT Act. As per capital account and details of payment U/s 80C

SHRI DINESH MANGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

property and not a housing loan in terms of section 24(b) of the IT Act. As per capital account and details of payment U/s 80C

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

house property under section 24b at Rs.91,193/- from the salary is factually incorrect. As regards HRA exemption, the AO has not allowed any exemption from Salary u/s 10(13A), whereas he ought to have allowed the same. The assessee has not claimed any separate exemption in respect of HRA of Rs.44,709/- and Rs.78,247/- In Form

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

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

housing loan and repayment, complete repayment schedule was submitted and all these papers, submitted before the learned A.O. along with the submission to kindly peruse the same on the basis of these papers and documents in relation to deduction claimed U/s 80C kindly allow the same since the addition made by the learned A.O. are totally baseless

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 159(2)(b), it is permissible for AO to issue fresh notice u/s 148 against legal representative, provided that same is not barred by limitation; he cannot continue proceedings based on an invalid notice issued u/s 148 to dead assessee—In present case, writ application succeeded— Notice issued by revenue u/s 148 were quashed” Alamelu Veerappan

ANIL GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

section 80C of I.T. Act and allowed by the ld. AO is as under: S.No. Head of payment Amount P.B. Page No. 1. LIC Premium 35,432 36 & 37 2. Priciple. Amount of repayment of Housing 29,148 38 & 39 loan (A-8/A-7 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur ) 3. Pr. Amount of repayment of Housing loan

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

80C of Rs. 9,400/-. Subsequently, the AO initiated the proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 and again by notice dated 12.08.2016. The assessee objected to initiation of penalty proceedings as well as levy of penalty proposed by the AO, however, could not succeed. The AO imposed the penalty

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

house property of Rs. 2,52,000/- during the year under consideration. The AO further noted that the assessee has also received interest other than securities of Rs. 44,455/- and cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 62,89,400/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the said deposit made in the bank account

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

house property of Rs. 2,52,000/- during the year under consideration. The AO further noted that the assessee has also received interest other than securities of Rs. 44,455/- and cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 62,89,400/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the details of the said deposit made in the bank account

SANDEEP JAIN,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4) JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property. Appellant prays that home loan statement was furnished during assessment proceedings, therefore disallowance of loss is absolutely arbitrary and deserves to be allowed as claimed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.AO has grossly erred in confirming the action of ld.AO in not allowing deduction

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

House Property’’, Profit and Gains from Business’’ and ‘’Income from other sources. In this case, it is noted that the AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the Act as the assessee neither complied with the notices in spite of various opportunities nor offered any plausible explanation to substantiate the sources

SUNIL KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Property at Mumbai and interest income from his NRO/NRE Bank A/c. The assessee maintains accounts on computer for his affairs in India and prepares yearly Balance Sheet etc.The assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 computing total income of Rs. 88,407/- and therefrom claimed deduction u/s 80C of Rs. 88,407/- and thus declaring