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

property since last 20 years, the same held as investment therefore, eligible to claim benefit of long term capital gains and utilization of capital gains for purchase of house

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 hence, his case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found by the AO that the appellant had sold 10 immovable properties during the impugned AY for total consideration of Rs.4,18,45,690/-. These properties sold were constructed over a period of 3 years by joining the land of 3 family

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

gains, is very important for two reasons ~ first, that the cost of acquisition for tenancy rights, under section 55(2)(a), is, unless purchased from a previous owner ~ which is admittedly not the case here, treated as ‘nil’; and, - second, since the Provisions of section 50C can only be applied in respect of “transfer by an assessee of a capital

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house properties Therefore, the claim of 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

house properties Therefore, the claim of 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

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

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

house property and other information during the revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Act. In response to letter of PCIT, the assessee had furnished the documentary evidences and information as required by the PCIT which were also on record of the AO. 9. We observed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the reason “Whether capital gains

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

properties purchased by assessee were located in same geographical area, assessee would be entitled for exemption provided under section 54F- Held, yes (Paras 7.1, 7.2 and 7.4] [In favour of assessee). [2017] 291 CTR 272 (P & H); PCIT v/s Anil Nagpal Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains Exemption, in case of investment in residential house

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

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

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) :

house construction. However, without specifically dealing with the same, Ld. CIT(A), at para 4.3, chose to confirm the action of Ld.AO in determining capital gains of Rs.23.49 Lacs. Similarly the addition of Rs.7.10 Lacs was confirmed in a mechanical manner without going into the factual matrix of the case. The assessee had raised another ground by contending that

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

House Property which too confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) after providing part relief in respect of statutory deduction@ 30% which is bad in law. Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO 6. That the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains as per provision of law and disclosed the same in her return of A.Y 2016-17. 4 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO 4. It was submitted that from the bank statement, it can be observed that the assessee has received the sales consideration from sale of property in 2014 & 2015 and thereafter has withdrawn the cash

SMT. MANJULA DEVI JAIN ,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Manjula Devi Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, 1-35, Housing Board, Ward-2, Pali. Pali. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampj4848D

Housing Board, Ward-2, Pali. Pali. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAMPJ4848D Revenue By Shri Amit Kothari (CA) & Shri Abhinav Kothari (CA) Assessee By Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav (JCIT-DR) Date of hearing 18/03/2020 Date of 20/03/2020 Pronouncement O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if— (a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect of such business; (b) the donations made to the institution or fund are not used

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

House No. 01 Green Field Sri Ganganagar. Near, New Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar. Raj. [PAN:AFZPJ9321B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Suresh Ojha, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

property including land and 10 shops comes to Rs. 11 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 34,50,000.00 (Rs. 31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost of acquisition and resultant capital gain

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

property including land and 10 shops comes to Rs. 11 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT 34,50,000.00 (Rs. 31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost of acquisition and resultant capital gain