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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

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

house property.\nWhile responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the\nassessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed\ninadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be\nclaimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity,\nstraightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly\nclaimed

SMT. SAROJ SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

89 TTJ 684 (Coch.), it has been held as under: "Since the assessee-firm was carrying on the business of constructing and running shopping complex-cum-lodging house and not the business of banking, rent received by it by letting out a functionally independent portion of a building to a bank was assessable as income from house property

DY.CIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ SHARMA, JAIPUR

89 TTJ 684 (Coch.), it has been held as under: "Since the assessee-firm was carrying on the business of constructing and running shopping complex-cum-lodging house and not the business of banking, rent received by it by letting out a functionally independent portion of a building to a bank was assessable as income from house property

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

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 139(4) of the IT Act. It was also submitted that the intention of the assessee was to construct residential house and accordingly the assessee had made investment of Rs. 23,89,100/- whereas he has received actual sale consideration of Rs. 11,60,000/- on transfer of the property

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

89,100 house 3]It is submitted that the provision of section 50C has not applicable in the case of the assessee as entire actual sale consideration received by the assessee was invested in the construction of new house. The meaning of full value of consideration as referred to in Explanation to s. 54F(1) is not governed

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house. Once an assessee falls within the ambit of a beneficial\nprovision, then the said provision should be liberally interpreted. The Supreme\nCourt in the case of CCE v. Favourite Industries, [2012]7 SCC 153, has succinctly\nobserved thus :\n42. So far as the question no.1 is concerned, the same is answered in favour of the\nassessee and against

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 69A\nof the Income Tax Act.\nDecision of the Ld Assessing Officer and the Ld CIT(A) suffers from gross\nperversity of law and facts. There is no unexplained investment in property made\nby the appellant. The investment is duly recorded in the Books of accounts and\nhas flown from the disclosed Bank account of the appellant. When there

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

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. As narrated\nhereinabove, the brief facts related to the case of the assessee are that the\nassessee derives income from house property, interest and other sources,\nand filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.19,89

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

89,436/-. In view of above, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. The facts are identical in this year as well. Therefore, taking a consistent view, we direct the AO to delete the addition. Ground raised in this appeal is allowed. 4. Now we take

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

89,436/-. In view of above, we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. The facts are identical in this year as well. Therefore, taking a consistent view, we direct the AO to delete the addition. Ground raised in this appeal is allowed. 4. Now we take

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

89,419/- i.e\n40,33,412/- on account of construction expenses and added in total income of\nthe assessee. without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the\nassessee appellant.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Ld. Lower\nAuthority grossly erred in confirming the disallowance