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

gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. In our view, such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing but a change

SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR TONGIA ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed

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.485/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Rajendra Kumar Tongia Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Bhilwara बनाम 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road Rajasthan / Vs. Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abjpt-2415-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

carry out the transactions in a business-like manner. The assessee, all along, has maintained that the investments were capital investment and the gains / losses arising there-from were assessable under the head capital gains. In such a case, there would be a bona fide belief for the assessee to not to maintain books of accounts and get them audited

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

forward of unabsorbed loss of Rs. 5,52,17,083/- (b/f loss of AY 2016-17 Rs.3,17,161 + current year's loss of Rs.5,48,99,877/-). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 17.08.2018 was digitally served on the registered email of the assessee- company through ITBA module by the DCIT

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

carried forward and notionally adjusted from the profits arising from eligible business in the 'initial assessment year' and subsequent assessment years for the purposes of Section 80IA(5) of the Act. 9. The manner of determination of quantum of deduction as provided under s.80IA(5) of the Act has since been clarified by the CBDT Circular No.1 of 2016 dated

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

carried forward in the subsequent year, it would not prove that the trading liabilities the assessee have become non existent. 6.2 The aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nitin S. Garg (supra) has been considered and followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara (supra) and the addition made

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains. The assessee had maintained books of accounts which are subject to audit as per provision of law. The case of assessee was selected for 2 Shri Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur limited scrutiny on various issues and accordingly, the Ld AO had issued a query letter asking various queries/questions including the question about claim

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

forward until it becomes nil by reducing its amount from income of any subsequent year. In this way it is outflow of fund. I do concur with the view of the AO. In the case of Bombay Sales Corporation [2017] 86 taxmann.com 9 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) held that, since no interest free own funds were available at disposal of assessee, disallowance

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

loss is reduced or assessed as income, the tax effect would include notional tax on disputed additions. In case of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. 5. The Assessing Officer shall calculate the tax effect separately for every assessment year in respect of the disputed issues