ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business of real estate developer, therefore, vide notice dated 11.10.209, the assessee was asked to explain why the income from sale of properties should not be assessed as business income instead of long term capital

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

Income-tax Act, 1961, the capital gain is chargeable on the transfer of ‘capital asset’ only and not otherwise. Hence, if the transfer is not of a capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act, the question of any capital gain does not arise. Our concern is with section 2(14)( iii)(a) and (b) which

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

income from house property',\n(iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and\n(v) 'income

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the deduction\nclaimed under section 35AD, has been disallowed by the Id. AO in the\nreassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the\nNFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the\nAO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the deduction\nclaimed under section 35AD, has been disallowed by the Id. AO in the\nreassessment proceedings u/s 148, but the same was allowed by the\nNFAC/CIT(A) without appreciating the facts. The Ld. CIT (DR) contended that the\nAO disallowed such claim of the assessee on the ground that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

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

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition

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

business or trading income, agriculture income, capital gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

income from business and other sources. Information received from DDIT (Inv.) Ahmedabad regarding a search operation in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah revealed evidence of unaccounted cash and bogus Long Term 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

business 949000/- Schedule BP & profession (P.B. Page no. 25 to 29) 2. Income from Capital 1068934/ Schedule Capital Gain Gain

SHRI TRILOCK CHAND BUGALIYA,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya, Income Tax Officer, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Ward-2, Makrana 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Acvpb6833F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur Dated 14.02.2020 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.03.2013 Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Makrana. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya

income from capital gain particularly when the assessee had claimed the same as business income. 4. That on the facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business of Hotel and Resort as proprietor of M/s Ashwariya Restors. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 8,56,670/-. After processing U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 02.09.2014 was issued

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

business income estimated by him. 2.2 It is settled position of the law that whenever an income is estimated the penalty cannot be levied. 2.3 Our reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements : CIT Vs Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries (Raj HC) 360 ITR 580 9 Smt. Jaya Mogra ITO vs Shri Uday Kumar D.Bhatt in ITA No.2072/Ahd./2018

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

business and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses is allowable in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains

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

income from business & profession of Rs. 1,77,438/- and long term capital gain of Rs. 4,27,217/-. Notice

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 after disallowing the claim under section