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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs.\n1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively\nand further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs.\n1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively\nand further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property

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

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs.\n1,00,000/-, Rs. 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs 1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively\nand further claiming loss under the head “Income from House Property

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

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

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

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur. The assessee

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Property -38,129 E. Gross Total Income (B+C-D) 4,66,819 F. Deduction u/s 80C 1,17,392 G. Deduction u/s 80TTA 3,113 H. Total Income [E-F-G] 3,46,314 5 Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO I. Rounded off Rounded off 346,310 4. Thereafter, the return was processed

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

property. As the assessee has not furnished the copy of the bank statement the claim was denied to the assessee. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80C of the Act for an amount of Rs. 49,375/- the ld. AO has not allowed a sum of Rs. 28,000 being the amount of housing loan repayment

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

property. As the assessee has not furnished the copy of the bank statement the claim was denied to the assessee. The assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80C of the Act for an amount of Rs. 49,375/- the ld. AO has not allowed a sum of Rs. 28,000 being the amount of housing loan repayment

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)

80C and 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) restored the grounds of appeal raised before him who set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Housing Corporation Limited vs ACIT (2009) 32 SOT 207 (Ahd ITAT), it has been held that capital receipts are eligible to be excluded by virtue of section 115JB (5) but not deduction u/s 80IA. 50. In view of several binding judicial precedents of Honourable High courts stated above holding that since 115JB(5) does not specify any particular claim

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

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

80C of the IT Act, 1961. The assessee failed to substantiate his claim. Hence, the amount of Rs. 43,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. The assessment was completed u/s. 147/144 with an assessed income of Rs. 10,12,260/-. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide

BHAGWAN SAHAY,SANGANER, JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

80C of Rs. 37,828/-. xi) Copy of ITR-2 for the assessment year 2007-08was filed, which is treated as non est, being filed beyond the prescribed period. xii) House a/c, Advance for House a/c, 03 contractors a/c and cash book prepared 1.4.2006 to 28.7.2007. xiii) Contract note prepared with three person on plain papers for demolition