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

v. Ambadi Krishna Menon (2024) 163\ntaxmann.com 141 (Kerala) (Pr.8) (DC 21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section

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

v. Ambadi Krishna Menon (2024) 163\ntaxmann.com 141 (Kerala) (Pr.8) (DC 21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section

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

v. Ambadi Krishna Menon (2024) 163\ntaxmann.com 141 (Kerala) (Pr.8) (DC 21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section

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

v. Ambadi Krishna Menon (2024) 163\ntaxmann.com 141 (Kerala) (Pr.8) (DC 21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section

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

v. Ambadi Krishna Menon (2024) 163\ntaxmann.com 141 (Kerala) (Pr.8) (DC 21-28) quashed a penalty-imposed u/s\n271(1)(c) holding that:\n“Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Penalty – For concealment of\nincome – Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee filed return for AY 2011-12,\ndeclaring income and capital gains, which was processed under Section

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 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)

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

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)

house property” till A.Y. 2012-13. W.e.f. Assessment Year 2013-14, assessee started showing rental income as “Business Income” and simultaneously started charging depreciation on such rented buildings. During the course of scrutiny assessment, it was stated by ld.AO that depreciation on buildings was to be charged on Written Down Value as computed in accordance with explanation to section

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

v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and (vi) If the assessee complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation

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

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

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

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

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

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

property, cannot be satisfactorily explained by the assessee, it\nis open to the revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee and no further\nburden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source,\nvide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72\nITR 194 (SC).\nHere

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

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

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that the search proceeding was carried out under section 132 of the Act on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee group and family members of Bhagwati Group of Ajmer and the assessee is amongst the other