KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

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

Section 54, the appellant is entitled to exemption on sale of the residential house at Vidhyadhar Nagar u/s 54 as the assessee had purchase a new flat on the sale of proceeds of the said impugned property. The addition made by the AO of Rs.94,39,201/- u/s 54F is deleted the relief is allowed

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

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

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 10B.” In view of the above submissions, entire interest expense of Rs. 5,06,678/- may please be allowed under income from house property as well under income from other sources as above.” 4. Regarding Ground No. 3, the ld. AR submitted that during the year, the appellant had deposited cash of Rs. 40,000/- in Bank

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

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

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

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

GANESH CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

89,07,273/- in the return of income. The assessee while computing the capital gain has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 60,63,980/- on account of construction of house property on plot No. C-105, Taneja Block, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54F on the ground that

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

89,79,851.00. 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)

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition

BHAGWAN SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

89,600/- 2,10,400/- Second Floor 2007-08 10,55,000/- 2007-08 5,95,270/- 4,59,730/- Total 26,80,000/- 7,84,870/- 18,95,130/- The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by accepting the construction cost

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

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

89 ITR 258 (SC) : TC17R.1227, it would be the market value of these raw materials and semi-finished needles as on 30th Sept., 1961. It is now well settled by these decisions that where an assessee converts his capital assets into stock- in-trade and starts dealing in them, the taxable profit on the sale must be determined by deducting

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. 9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

89,832/- out of interest on housing loan by observing as under:- ‘’3(a) During the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the assessee has claimed housing loan interest of Rs. 2,39,832/- in the head of ‘Income from House Property’’. AR of the assessee has been asked to produce the details of the loan and property