SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

properties purchased by assessee were located in same geographical area, assessee would be entitled for exemption provided under section 54F- Held, yes (Paras 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4] [In favour of assessee). [2017] 291 CTR 272 (P & H); PCIT v/s Anil Nagpal Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Exemption, in case of investment in residential house

SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

section 54F is allowed in respect of investment made prior to date of filing of return. In the light of the above actual expenditure for claiming exemption u/s 54F was Rs. 3460894/- (6106014- 1120620-1524500) only and therefore exemption u/s 54F was to be allowed for Rs. 3273202/- (3460894 x 25724885 / 27200000) only. However, while completing assessment full exemption

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

54F of the Income Tax Act 1961. Sir, the appellant begs to submit that she claimed deduction u/s. 54 of the Act on account of investment in house property at Rs. 15,00,000/-, but the AO denied by the same by stating that the construction of house made on the Property which is owned by Sh. Mohammed Ashif

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

54F for investment in residential property at Bengaluru. Further residential property purchased at Bengaluru was for personal use of assessee and not merely a capital investment. 14. In its order, the ld. CIT(A) after holding that purchase of property as capital asset, assigned only one reason in treating the plotting of land as ‘Adventure in the nature of trade

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

54F for investment in residential property at Bengaluru. Further residential property purchased at Bengaluru was for personal use of assessee and not merely a capital investment. 14. In its order, the ld. CIT(A) after holding that purchase of property as capital asset, assigned only one reason in treating the plotting of land as ‘Adventure in the nature of trade

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

section 54F of the Income Tax Act on technical ground which is bad in law. 5. That on the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in the law the Ld. AO by the impugned order of assessment erred in taxing a sum of Rs. 18,000/- being income under the head House Property

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 - Whether where a company acquires properties which it sells or leases out with view to acquiring other properties to be dealt with in same manner, company is not treating them as properties to be enjoyed in shape of rents

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house. What should be cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD ie. on the facts and circumstances of the case, which is part of finding of fact. No interference is called for." (v) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in the case of CIT Central, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Govadia in ITA No. 82/2010