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

9. Provisions of section 54 and 54F, as applicable in the relevant assessment year, are reproduced below for the ease of discussions: Sec. 54: Profit on sale of property used for residence. 54. 39[(1)] 40[41[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee42 being an individual or a Hindu undivided family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 within

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

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

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property,\nBusiness and Other sources. The assessee is a finance broker and earned brokerage\nin come in his proprietary concern M/s Vihan Associates.\n5\nThe proceedings of assessment of income were commenced by issue of\nnotice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 19-09-2017, and notice u/s 142(1) dated 05-07-2018,\nand

SCHOLARS EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9, lucknow, the assessee society has paid rent of Rs.3,99,600/- to Ms.\nPriyakanksha Mishra, daughter of Sh. Sangam Mishra, who is the trustee of the assessee\ntrust. The question for consideration is whether the property has been taken on rent for the\npurposes of the assessee trust and secondly, whether rent payment is commensurate with\nthe rent prevailing

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

house property instead of income from business or profession. The ld DR has relied on the following decisions: (i) Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1962) 44 ITR 362 (SC) (ii) Palam Gas Service Vs CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 43 (SC) 4 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (iii) Shr Choudhary Transport Company Vs ITO (2020) 118 Taxmann.com

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

house property on April 26, 1991 The Assessing Officer did not accept this explanation and taxed this amount, ie difference of Rs. 1,40,000 as short-term capital gain. No appeal was preferred Therefore, that addition had become final. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house property, capital gains and other sources, the provisions of section 32 are not applicable. Provisions of section 32, i.e., deprecation are, therefore, applicable in case of income earned under the head 'profit and gains of business or profession'. Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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

9) comes to 6715.6 grams whereas\nthe weight of the 18 Kt. Gold studded jewellery as per the stock details as per the\nbooks of accounts as submitted by the appellant comes to 5799.42 grams. This\nitself shows that there is huge difference in the quantity of stock. The other items\nhave not been verified. The onus

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

1).\nThe above judgement also needs to be considered in the interpretation of the \nidentifying the block of 10 years of the section 153C of the Act. There are \nnumerous judgements wherein it has been held that provisions of section 158BD \nand 153C are in substance similar and in section 158BD the block period is not \ndependent upon the date

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Property sold (1/2 share). The reason granted by A.O. for such dis-allowance is “In absence of any supporting document / Evidences claim of “COST OF IMPROVEMENT” Rs 489159 is disallowed”. B. Whereas the Assessee vide reply to notice u/sec 142(1) of Act date 20.07.2023 has filed complete Details/Proof for such claim. Again on 23.08.2023 such Details/Evidence were E-Filed

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14