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 gain under the head business income and not giving benefit of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold his land and offered capita gain thereon after claiming deduction

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 under the head business income and not giving benefit of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 2 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold his land and offered capita gain thereon after claiming deduction

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

deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act. c) While disallowing the claim of the assessee, the Ld. A.O. has pointed out in para no. 3.2 that the assessee has failed to submit any other documentary evidence which can prove the utilization of subjected capital asset for agriculture activity in last two years from the sale of said capital asset

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

capital gains and income from other sources being interest on savings bank, GFDR, other interest and bond etc. The appellant had claimed deduction

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." It was directed by the PCIT that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. Such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing but a change in opinion. The courts across the spectrum have unanimously held that the order

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

capital gains/ loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income." Not for “deduction claimed under

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.

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 when same were outside the purview of Municipal limit

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

Capital Gain 1. Ag. Land 10/12/2012 Value u/s 50C Rs.3,28,87,500/- Sale Consideration Received Rs. 3,28,87,500/- 4 Shri Badri Prasad Sale Consideration Rs. 3,28,87,500/- Less: Transfer expense Rs. 3,28,875/- Less: Indexed Cost of Acq. FY 1981-82 274000/100*852 Rs. 23,34,480/- Rs. 3,02,24,145/- Deduction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of a residential property which was set-off towards purchase of two residential properties - Accordingly, assessee sought exemption under section 54 - Assessing Officer in view of amended provision of section 54 restricted assessee's claim to purchase value of only one property having higher value Whether since amendment to provision of section 54 restricting deduction

CHANCHAL KUMARI JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands partly 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.213/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Chanchal Kumari Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 143-A/A, Shastri Nagar Ward-3, Bhilwara Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311 001. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adnpj-8347-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

deduction of Rs.1,50,019/- out of expenses incurred towards Short Term Capital gains shown by the appellant. The determination

SHYAM SUNDAR INANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

deduction under Chapter VI-A; 4. Estimation of income without rejection of books of account; and 5. Denial of cost of construction in computation of long-term capital gain

NARAYANI BAI DANGI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

capital gain by denial of deduction u/s 54B, also erred in not considering the material in their true perspective and sense

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

capital gains in the hands of both the assessees by adopting 25% of the DLC value of Rs.1.44 crores as sale consideration. The AO further noticed that the assessees have deducted

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act cannot be allowed.” 19. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. Before us it is not disputed that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown on long term capital gain

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act cannot be allowed.” 19. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. Before us it is not disputed that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown on long term capital gain

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

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

deduction under chapter VIA of Rs. 4215/- had declared the total income of Rs. 2013720/- in the return of income. The income so declared in following manner in return of income as:- S.no Particulars of income Amount Heads under which such income to be taxed in ITR 1. Income from business 949000/- Schedule BP & profession (P.B. Page

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 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) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

deduction and the method in which the same would be done. When section 234E has already created a charge for levying fee that would thereafter not been necessary to have yet another provision creating the same charge. Viewing section 200A as 5 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. creating a new charge would bring about a dichotomy. In plain terms

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute the\nfact that the assessee did file the return. Importantly, even the second factual assertion of\nthe Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded is totally incorrect. He has referred to said\nsum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- as a sale price of the property. The assessee had produced\nbefore the Assessing Officer