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

9 of assessment order- “3.8. Further, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 on purchase of two flats in the same locality which is also not allowable as per provisions of section 54F of the IT Act, 1961. As per provisions of section 54F, assessee can purchase or construct a new house property

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

RADHEY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Housing Finance and Leasing Co. Ltd. [2013] 29 taxmann.com 303 (Del.). It would be appropriate here to reproduce the provisions of section 23 of the Act as under: “ Annual value how determined. 23. (i) for the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) The sum for which the property might reasonably

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

9), i.e. (a) to (f), case of assessee falls. As is evident from the assessment order, ld.AO initiated the penalty for “misreporting and under reporting of income”. In other words, ld.AO himself was not clear if the case falls under sub section (1) or sub section (8) of section 270A. In fact, in none of the notices issued u/s 270A

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

9), i.e. (a) to (f), case of assessee falls. As is evident from the assessment order, ld.AO initiated the penalty for “misreporting and under reporting of income”. In other words, ld.AO himself was not clear if the case falls under sub section (1) or sub section (8) of section 270A. In fact, in none of the notices issued u/s 270A

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections as follows: 9 Smt. Rama Bajaj, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur S. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) Interest to be allowed under Income from 1. Other Sources 2,74,705/- Balance Interest to be allowed under Income 2. 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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs.1,21,350/- on account of non-declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued (PB 9

RUP KUMAR RAMCHANDANI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(2), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

House Property”, under Section 24(b) of the Act. 7. The facts relating to the issue which are not in dispute, and which emanate from the orders of the authorities below, are that the assessee is an individual and is carrying on business in his proprietorship firm “SHE”. During the impugned year, the assessee had claimed deduction on account

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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs.1,21,350/- on account of non-declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued (PB 9

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

house property income and for concealing particulars of income to the extent of Rs.1,21,350/- on account of non-declaration of income from other sources were initiated. Noticed u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued (PB 9

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

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

section (1) were consequently amended to read, as contained in the current provisions, where it talks about transfer of a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property". 9

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

9. This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of G.E. India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 327 I.T.R. 456, in which, it is very categorically held that the tax deducted at source obligations under Section 195 (1) of the Act arises, only if the payment is chargeable

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54 and 54EC of the Act, in respect of a residential house property purchased in the name of assessee's wife. In the light of above facts and the numerous decisions on which reliance has been placed in support of claim of the appellant u/s 54F of the Act, it is submitted that the order

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

property was acquired in the joint names of the assessee and his wife. The income tax authorities restricted the deduction under Section 54F to 50% on the footing that the deduction was not available on the portion of the investment which stands in the name of the 9 Sh. Genesh Chawla vs. ACIT assessee's wife. This view was disapproved

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR vs. SILVER SAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house was ready for occupation, if the same is not kept vacant intentionally by the assessee then vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c) would be available to the assessee. The revenue would argue that the benefit of section 23(1)(c) is available only when the property was let out at first place and then remain vacant. However