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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

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

house property. While responding (vide letter dated 18.03.2018 PB 3), to the surprise of the assessee, it came to his notice that some mistakes have been committed inadvertently in as much as deductions even though not applicable, could be claimed therein. Therefore, the assessee in all truthfulness and simplicity, straightforwardly and voluntarily admitted that some deductions could be wrongly claimed

SHRI MANOHAR LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 54 of the Act. 5. Regarding the other finding of the Assessing Officer that the nature of the property is that of shops as mentioned in the sale deed itself and the basement was constructed under the shops and therefore is a part of the shopping complex, it was submitted that from the perusal of the sale deed

M/S PRAMOD SAHAI BHATNAGAR HUF,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

96,314/- respectively. The assessee claimed exemption U/s 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gain arising from sale of house property against the investment of Rs. 5,00,00,007/- made in two flats bearing No. 7103 5 M/s Pramod Sahai Bhatnagar, HUF vs. ACIT and 7113 situated at 10th and 11th floors of tower Gardenia

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 69 of the Act. With the Following remarks, the income of the assessee is calculated as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income from salary ( as declared) Rs. 24,00,000/- Income from House property (as declared) Rs. 10,81,941/- Income from business (after deduction of Rs. Nill surrendered income) Income from capital gain Short Term

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house properties situated at Australia considering Article 6 of DTAA with Australia. Thus, the assessee was confronted on the issue, the assessee vide reply dated 25.12.2020 submitted that as per section 9 of the Act income arising from any property situated in India shall be deemed to income accrue or arise in India. She further submitted that as Article

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, KOTA

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

96,000/- from property situated at 9 Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, Kota Vs. ITO, Kota Kota Junction, Kota, rental income of Rs. 1.2 lakh from House No. 756, Pratap Nagar, Kota, Rajasthan and rental income of Rs. 1.65 lakhs from property situated at Dadabari, Kota and on such basis of past rental income so disclosed by the assessee

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

96]000 + 3]87]000½ esa gh mlus mlds cSad [kkrs esa tek djok;k gSA cSad [kkrs esa tek jkf”k dk djnkrk ls dksbZ ysuk&nsuk ugh gS djnkrk dk ;g dguk fd mlds }kjk HUF dh tehu csph xbZ gS djnkrk dh O;fDrxr tehu ugh gS] ;g rdZ fcYdqy ekU; ;ksX; ugh gSA D;ksfd djnkrk

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

House property Rs. 31,780/- as discussed in para no. 6 Add : Disallowance u/s 14A as discussed in para Rs. 73,332/- no. 7 Add : Disallowance u/s 80G as discussed in para Rs. 2,685/- no. 8 Add : Addition of unexplained Cash found Rs. 32,69,455/- during search as discussed in para no. 9. Add : Addition of on account

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

house under section 54 or 54F is to be considered till the date of filing return of income under section 139(4) of the Act. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Smt. Umayal Annamalai [2020] 118 taxmann.com 80/273 Taxman 146 (Mad.). 2. Dr. Kushagra Kataria v. Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 359/174

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

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

96,410/- under section 56(2)(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

SHRI VIKAS SONGARA,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Him On Merit By Simply Stating That Assessee Has 2 Sh. Vikas Songara, Ajmer Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ajmer

96,210/- which included capital gain of Rs.20,36,567/-. The capital gain was declared on account of sale of factory land, building, etc. which was calculated as under:- Particulars Amount Deemed sales consideration u/s 50C Rs.55,77,175/- (actual consideration Rs.54,35,000/-) Less:- Transfer Expenses Rs.17,000/- Rs.55,60,175/- Less:-Indexed cost of acquisition Rs.35

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

Property- Rs. 8,17,320\n1.3. Income from Other Sources- Rs. 23,00,000\n2. It is submitted that there is no basis whatsoever through which the present additions were\nmade by the ld. AO to the income of the assessee.\n3. The assessee had not earned any such income during the year under consideration.\nEquating the income

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

section 271AAB(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the submission of the assessee. 3. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, having income from salary, house

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

96[1st day of April, 97[1981]]. 98[*] means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations to the capital asset on or after the said date by the previous owner or the assessee, and (i) in any other case, means all expenditure of a capital nature incurred in making any additions or alterations

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

96, Chomu House) i.e. Rs.1,01,97,208/- u/s 48(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being incidental and unavoidable expenses without which as stated above, assessee could not get the physical possession over the premises sold during the year. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee. Also, Ld. AO denied to give benefit of cost incurred