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

addition made by the AO at Rs.7214057/- treating the same as capital assets may kindly be directed to be deleted. Since it is established that the said lands were a rural agricultural land and do not fall under the definition of capital asset or urban land as given in Income tax Act or Wealth tax Act, therefore, provisions

ANIL KUMAR NUWAL,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainanil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aavpn 4375 L

income for the period under consideration at Rs. 25,350 for which no supporting evidence was furnished. In addition to the above, the Ld. A.O has also pointed out that the subjected capital asset was sold on 27.06.2015 and the new asset being agriculture land was purchased on 10.05.2016, the new asset was purchased after the expiry of ten month

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

addition after having the following observation: “2. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for taxing capital gain under the head business income

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

capital gain or business income. Such enhancement of scope of limited scrutiny assessment was without any approval from Pr. CIT. That enhancing scope of limited scrutiny assessment without any prior approval of Pr. CIT is contrary to the CBDT Direction and therefore the same is without jurisdiction and any addition

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

addition of Rs. 33,03,724. vide query dated 17.12.2018 the ld AO made in-depth examination of the Short Term Capital Gain Income

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

addition to above the assessee is a partner in the firm and received share of profit etc. Further also the assessee has disclosed income from capital gain

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

gains of business or profession" The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant also approve this view. Ld ITAT in its order for AY 2016-17 in the case of appellant has also computed income of the appellant without making separate addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act though the appellant had disallowed amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. MARUDHAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.177/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.140/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-Circle-1 M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Jodhpur. Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. C.O. No.02/Jodh/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.177/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. C.O. No.14/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.140/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur. Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Income and further upholding the working of Capital Gains declared by the assessee and deleting addition of Rs.7,03,86,9707- and accepting

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The ld. AO has not considered the law full submission made by the assessee and rectified the assessment u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and make addition

SMT. CHANDRA KANTA CHOUDHARY,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Vs. I.T.O. 135, Main Sector, Ward-3, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan No. Abxpc 9134 H Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 10/01/2018 For The Ay. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Passed By Ld Ao As The Order Passed By Ld Ao Without Jurisdiction & Also Contrary To The Guideline Issued By The Hon’Ble Cbdt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 89,39,398/- In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain Particularly When Same Was Never Subject Matter Of Limited Scrutiny. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Made By Ld Ao Which He Could Not Have Made As The Jurisdiction Of The Ld Ao Was Limited.

addition of Rs. 89,39,398/- as long term capital gain particularly when the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land not capital assets U/s 2(14) of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that lands in dispute were within municipal limit particularly

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain arisen due to transaction of\npenny stock, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T.\nAct, 1961 on account of failure of the assessee to file the return of income and\ndisclose fully and truly the material facts relating to the above transaction.\n(ii)\nIn the assessment order the AO has made additions

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Income-Tax-Exemption-Long-Term Capital Gains - Purchase and Sale of Shares Additions made on basis of information from investigation

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

additional income as\nbusiness income in his return of income and paid due taxes thereon.\n18. In our view, what is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not\njust the factum of survey action but besides that, what is the explanation so offered\nby the Assessee explaining the nature and source of income so found during the\ncourse

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income of Rs. 7,50,190/-. While completing the\nassessment, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,84,76,000/- in the hands of\nthe assessee. Besides, the AO also made an addition of Rs. 48,49,782/- on account\nof bogus Long Term Capital Gain

HARISH KUMAR BAHETI,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.56/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Harish Kumar Baheti Acit –Circle Bhilwara बनाम C/O M/S. R.K. Bhandari & Associates (Ca) Rajasthan City Tower, Gandhi Bazar / Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlpb-1795-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

income of Rs.18.87 Lacs was assessed at Rs.49.80 Lacs after certain additions / adjustments. The additions of Rs.23.49 Lacs under the head capital gains

ADITYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU / ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

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

addition of Rs. 13,73,140/- by treating the exempt dividend income as business income. a] That on 26/10/2019 the assessee company had filed the return of income and disclosed the gross total income of Rs. 2017934/- and after claiming the deduction under chapter VIA of Rs. 4215/- had declared the total income of Rs. 2013720/- in the return

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

addition of Rs. 21.45,000/- for the income on account of above profit from land at Badi as an enhancement by this office besides the amounts discussed above, while giving relief of Rs. 39.70 lacs as discussed in para 3.5.5 above. Moreover, the Notice U/s 271(1)(c) is issued by this office for concealment of particulars for income

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

addition and under what head\nwhether, under business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus