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 as per provisions of section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against

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 as per provisions of section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against

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 offered as income from business and disallowing the deductions/exemptions claimed u/s.54F/54EC of the Act. one of these grounds

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

disallowed and added to the total income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain

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.

capital gain is taken up by the A.O. without expansion or conversion of the limited scrutiny to comprehensive scrutiny then such act of A.O. is beyond his jurisdiction and the order passed by the A.O. U/s 143(3) of the Act would be illegal and void ab initio. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view on this issue

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 gain, ignoring the various patent facts of the case emerging out of various clauses of the development agreement entered into with M/s Ess Gee Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is correct in facts and law in deleting the disallowances

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

disallowance of deduction U/s 54F ignoring the fact that the appellate has invested the consideration received by him in construction and has rightly claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain invested in two bungalows which were adjacent to each other and used as one residential unit Assessing Officer disallowed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed the claim of the appellant and added the said amount of Rs.7,45,080/- as income of the appellant u/s 68 and consequently commission expenses at\nRs. 22,352/- u/s 69C for providing the bogus capital gains

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

Capital Gain after disallowing the claim under section 10(38)\nof the IT Act, 1961. The assessee being aggrieved by the order

KISHAN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainkishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipm 6039 R

capital gains offered by the assessee, the A.O. made disallowance of improvement expenses of Rs. 2.50 lacs, transfer expenses of Rs. 7.00 lacs

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) :

disallowance of Investments made for Construction of Building of Rs.23,49,833/- which were being borrowed from Banks. 3. The A.O. was not justified in considering the Investment made for purchase of Residential of Rs.30,00,000/- which in fact not shown in original Income Tax Return because there was loss in the head Long Term Capital Gain

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain of Rs. 40,80,721/- and accordingly claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act being the investment in residential house. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of purchase deed, the ld. AO noted that the property that the assessee purchased is agriculture land as it is evident from the purchase deed filed by the assessee

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain of Rs. 40,80,721/- and accordingly claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act being the investment in residential house. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of purchase deed, the ld. AO noted that the property that the assessee purchased is agriculture land as it is evident from the purchase deed filed by the assessee

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

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)

Disallowance of 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

SURENDRA KUMAR MATHUR,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsurendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Akbpm 1606 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari Ca Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 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)-1, Jodhpur Dated 16/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 1991-92 At 2,12,500/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 2001-02 At 1,06,250/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 3,35,554/- On Account Of Fair Market Value U/S 50C Of The Act. The Declared Sale Consideration Deserved To Be Taken For Computing Long Term Gain.

capital gain is bad in law and bad on facts. 5. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before you Honour.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. In Ground

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,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 Banerjee

disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section