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

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

property for the purpose of section 54. Hence, the deduction of Rs.1,13,35,940/- claim by the assessee as deduction u/s 54 is not allowable. In this regard I would like to submit that apart from your lordship’s decision cited above in the case of Surendra Sharma there are a number of decisions of similar nature such

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

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property along with the source of same was filed. 2. The AO after verifying all the documents/ evidences with respect to the cost of acquisition, cost of improvement of agriculture land sold, stamp duty paid vis-à-vis the investment in purchase of house and expenditure on construction incurred thereon as also referred at Pg 2 of the assessment order

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

92,440 was not exigible to tax. However, the ITO rejected the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal found that there were conflicting judgments of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [1985] 156 ITR 542 and A.P. High Court

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

property" as "income from business. 7. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction from the amount of Rs. 908.46 lakhs under the head receipts from land regularization and conversion and Nagariya Kar (Lease Rental) considering the same as share of receipts payable to the other parties and holding that the same do not partake the character of income

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

property" as "income from business. 7. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing deduction from the amount of Rs. 908.46 lakhs under the head receipts from land regularization and conversion and Nagariya Kar (Lease Rental) considering the same as share of receipts payable to the other parties and holding that the same do not partake the character of income

SHRI JOHRI LAL SODHANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

92,33,609/- by treating it as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act for which the ld.AR of the assessee filed the following written submission alongwith case laws. ‘’1. The complete sequence of the transaction of purchase of the plot measuring 444.44 sq yard from Rajiv Ratan Shukla vide sale deed dated

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

housing construction. Therefore, the business activity as builder is not found to be as per objects of the trust. Hence, the section 11(4A) is clearly found to be applicable on the facts of the case. Since, the appellant is not eligible for benefit of section 11 as discussed earlier, the argument of the appellant that section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” 43. The DVO therefore in his report has stated clearly that in respect of one of the property, 70% is still used for residential purposes and remaining 30% is under industrial shed (commercial) and in respect of second

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

houses. 4. The property under consideration has 50% area under the industrial shed, the other 50% was still being used as residential.” 43. The DVO therefore in his report has stated clearly that in respect of one of the property, 70% is still used for residential purposes and remaining 30% is under industrial shed (commercial) and in respect of second

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

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

Housing V. ITO (ITA No. 5188/Del/2019.  DCIT Vs. Bsant Bansal (ITA No. 610/JP/2012.  Sanjay Subhashchand Gupta vs. ACIT 141 taxmann.com 369 ( Mumbai- Trib.)( 2022)  Vikram Krishna vs. PCIT 114 taxmann.com 197 (SC) (2020)  PCIT vs. Glandder Ceramics Ltd. 127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon

YOGESH MUTHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

92,774 sq. ft as attributable to the small house built on it for an\nsq.ft of 1490, that too involving agricultural land to contend that the same as part\nof house and thereby the same has neither any basis nor any justification\ncontrary to the findings of AO involving practical conditions and realities of a\nresidential house as predominantly

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (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

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

92,04,996/- from the JEWEL DIAM. The concern indulges in providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash obtained from the beneficiaries and not doing any genuine business activity as divulged during the course of search and seizure proceedings in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, Mumbai. The assessee is a beneficiary who has taken the accommodation entries in the nature

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

92,04,996/- from the JEWEL DIAM. The concern indulges in providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash obtained from the beneficiaries and not doing any genuine business activity as divulged during the course of search and seizure proceedings in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, Mumbai. The assessee is a beneficiary who has taken the accommodation entries in the nature

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

92,04,996/- from the JEWEL DIAM. The concern indulges in providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash obtained from the beneficiaries and not doing any genuine business activity as divulged during the course of search and seizure proceedings in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, Mumbai. The assessee is a beneficiary who has taken the accommodation entries in the nature

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)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares