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

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

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

9- fpfdRlk i)fr;ksa ls lacaf/kr vLirky cukuk] fjlpZ lsUVj] Lis’kykbZts’ku ,oa fjgsfcfyVs’ku lsUVj] vksYM ,t gkse dh LFkkiuk] lapkyu o fu;a=.k djukA 10- fo|ky;ksa] dkWystksa] laLFkkuksa ds lapkyu ,oa mudh LFkkiuk gsrq jktdh;@vjktdh; Lrj ij tehu [kjhn djuk@yht ij ysukA 11- lfefr ds vUrxZr m|kuksa] ikdksZa] lkeqnkf

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA, JAIPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

House of Parliament." • "In order to avoid double taxation, it is proposed to provide exemption under section 10 of the Act for any income arising 11 DCIT-Circle-1, Jaipur vs.Shri Prakash Chandra Mishra from providing specified services on which equalisation levy is chargeable." • "In order to ensure compliance with the provisions this Chapter, it is further proposed to provide

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

vii) of the Act. Thus the commission has been paid for the services rendered outside the India. The person to whom the commission paid was not having any business connection in the India and commission so earned by him is not taxable in the India. Therefore, the provisions of Section 195 of the Act are not applicable

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

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of . the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section

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

vii) The appellant had claimed that the AO had issued both notices u/s 271AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(c) which shows the confusion and uncertainty in the mind of the AO. The argument of the appellant is not correct. The penalty provision u/s 271AAB of the Act is specifically for the cases wherein search has been initiated. Sub section (1

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

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

vii)(C) of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 6,75,000/- under section 69 of the act, 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 30,87,700/- under

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

vii) LATE SHRI BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY vs. DEPUTY\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A'\nBHAVNESH SAINI, JM & B.R.R KUMAR, AM.\nITA.Nos., 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 & 439/Del./2017\n91 ITR (Trib) 0565 (Delhi), (2021) 212 TTJ 0357 (Del), (2021)\n203 DTR (Trib) 0249 (Del)(Trib)\nAfter considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that