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

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

capital gains for purchase of house U/s 54 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld DR has contended that the property on sale of land to a construction company were in the nature of business transaction, therefore, liable to tax as 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 gains for purchase of house U/s 54F of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld DR has contended that the property on sale of land to a construction company were in the nature of business transaction, therefore, liable to tax as business income

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

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

income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain for the relevant year." It was directed by the PCIT that the sale of land be booked under the head Business

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) :

Capital Gains and not Business Income and further upholding the working of Capital Gains declared by the assessee and deleting

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