KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), 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.

9) TMI 1069 - ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4 (1) , Mumbai Versus M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd In ITA No. 323/Mum/2020 Dated 24/08/2021. Held as under:- (Copy At PB Page No 142-151) M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. iii) 2018 (6) TMI 1781 - ITAT Mumbai M/S Sarang Property Developers

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.

9) TMI 1069 - ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 4 (1) , Mumbai Versus M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd In ITA No. 323/Mum/2020 Dated 24/08/2021. Held as under:- (Copy At PB Page No 142-151) M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. iii) 2018 (6) TMI 1781 - ITAT Mumbai M/S Sarang Property Developers

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

9 Shri Radhey Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. (c) where the property or any part of the property is let and was vacant during the whole or any part of the previous year and owning to such vacancy the actual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is less than the sum referred to in clause

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

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

property which has been found during the course of search. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the undisclosed investment in purchase of land cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed investment represents income

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

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)

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 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

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

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 of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act. 35. Consequent to our findings in the preceding paragraphs, we reach a conclusion that the authorities below are not justified in treating

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

house/ real estate agent / broker, who will be involved in merely identifying the right property for the prospective buyer / seller and once he completes the deal, he gets the commission. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the transaction partakes the character of "fees for technical services" as explained in the context of Section 9 (1

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

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the 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

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income

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

9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to explain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive claim of deduction amounting to Rs 1,59,000/- under Chapter-VIA of the income

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

vi) \n56,31,38,250 \n\nS.No \nName of the assessee \nFY 2015-16 \nAY 2016-17 \nFY 2016-17 \nAY 2017-18 \nFY 2017-18 \nAY 2018-19 \nTotal \n1 \nAnshu Sahay HUF \n16,21,91,214 \n17,81,66,880 \n3,40,24,557 \n37,43,82,651 \n2 \nDr. Madhuri Sahay

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

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

vi) or clause (vii) of sub-section (1) and shall be included in the total income of the nonresident, whether or not,— (i) the business or business connection in India; or (ii) the non-resident has rendered services in India. ITA 1122/JP/2016_ 4 Subhash Chand Gupta Vs ACIT In view of the explanation inserted in the section 9(2) with