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.

section of Income from House Property, the property for the purposes of any business or profession will not be covered under the provision of computing the income under head Income from house property. In the case of the assessee profit derived from sale of unsold stock is taxable as Income from Business or Profession. The unsold units so constructed

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

Section 54, the appellant is entitled to exemption on sale of the residential house at Vidhyadhar Nagar u/s 54 as the assessee had purchase a new flat on the sale of proceeds of the said impugned property. The addition made by the AO of Rs.94,39,201/- u/s 54F is deleted the relief is allowed

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

house properties situated in India and Income from business. For the relevant 3 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. previous year, assessee was a resident in India, in accordance with section 6 of the IT Act, 1961. Thus, in accordance with section 5 read with section 4 and 6, assessee offered entire income earned by him, whether in India or outside India

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

90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return

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

90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return

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

90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return

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

90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return

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

90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared\nbeing income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of\nRs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however\nrejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS\nACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return

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.

house property u/s 54F to Rs 28,00,000 only, as against claim made of Rs. 1,08,22,354/- and the deduction u/s 54F was recomputed proportionally as per provision of 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

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,11,000 [PB 27-32]. The resultant Capital Gains were claimed exempt, on account of purchase of immovable property situated at Raja Park in the immediately preceding year, under section 54F of the IT Act, 1961. VII. Section 54F provides that if any long term capital asset (except residential house

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

90,06,776.\n2. It was submitted before the lower authorities that when the debt burden of assessee's\nhusband Shri Satish Chandra Katta piled up and he was not able to pay interest but\nrather needed further money to feed the daily requirements of his incomplete business\nventures, he had to fall prey to the dictates of the money

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments. unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

house property which is again not disputed by the Revenue. The consideration as determined under s. 50C based on the stamp duty authority valuation is not a consideration which has been received by or has accrued to the assessee. Rather, it is a value which has been deemed as full value of consideration for the limited purposes of determining

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

property, the consideration paid generally includes the consideration for the plot also. 2. The Board has examined the issue whether, in cases where the residential house is constructed within the specified period, the cost of such residential house can be taken to include the cost of the plot also. The Board are of the view that the cost

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

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

section (2)(22)(e) of the Act refers to only any payment of any sum by way of advance or loan. It does not refer to or talk of a security deposit. In response ld. AO stated that the submission/ arguments of the assessee have been given thoughtful consideration but found not convincing for the following reasons that

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

90,06,776.\n2. It was submitted before the lower authorities that when the debt burden of assessee's\nhusband Shri Satish Chandra Katta piled up and he was not able to pay interest but\nrather needed further money to feed the daily requirements of his incomplete business\nventures, he had to fall prey to the dictates of the money

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

House Property Tax Rs. 21,725/- 7. Maintenance expenses Rs. 20,000/- Aggrieved of the additions made by ld.AO, (except enumerated at serial no. 5 and 6), assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), which stood dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. Present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order so passed by ld. CIT(A). With this background, ground