ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of real estate. For the year under consideration original return of income under section 139 was filed on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 7,70,040/-. A search

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

natural justice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of real estate. For the year under consideration original return of income under section 139 was filed on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 7,70,040/-. A search

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

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

natural\njustice. The same may kindly be deleted in full.”\n2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company\nand engaged in the business of real estate. For the year under consideration original\nreturn of income under section 139 was filed on 25.09.2013 declaring total income\nof Rs. 7,70,040/-. A search

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

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

natural justice which were explicitly required to be followed while exercising the power U/s 263 of the Act. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in ignoring the principle of law that the beneficial provisions must be considered liberally. 3 ITA 22/Jodh/2021 Shanti lal Deora Vs ACIT

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

capital gain at Rs. 7,45,080/- (Rs. 44,10,190 – Rs. 36,65,110). The assessee has not shown LTCG in her ITR for the AY 2013-14, accordingly, the AO held that amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- is liable to be brought for taxation. In view of the above, the AO observing that provisions of clause

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

justice. Therefore I humbly request kindly allow deduction claim by the assessee and oblige.” 11.5 On this issue, we have considered the rival submission and also gone through the contention raised by both the parties. We find from the record that there is no dispute about there is receipt of rent of Rs.8,03,316/-. It is also not disputed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

justice. Therefore I humbly request kindly allow deduction claim by the assessee and oblige.” 11.5 On this issue, we have considered the rival submission and also gone through the contention raised by both the parties. We find from the record that there is no dispute about there is receipt of rent of Rs.8,03,316/-. It is also not disputed

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

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

natural justice. 9. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing. 10. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the appellant filed the return of income for the A.Y 2019-20 on 26.10.2019 declaring total income

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

justice, it is requested to kindly condone the delay and allow the submission of appeal and oblige.” 3.1 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to the delayed filling of an appeal submitting that the assessee being guided by the expert in the filed and the contention raised are general in nature and thus 3 Smt. Jaya Mogra being

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. 4. Now, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record

GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 5,47,700/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte by observing as under:- "2.1 The form of appeal before the CIT (Appeals

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

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

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

capital gains. o The land under consideration was also an agricultural land outside the stipulated threshold and therefore, gains arising from the sale of said land were exempt in the hands of the Appellant and not disclosed as taxable income in the Return of Income of the Appellant. o The sale proceeds of said property were duly deposited

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

capital in nature and being expended wholly and exclusively and for the business of the assessee are fulfilled and therefore the amount contributed by the assessee being employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI is allowable as a deduction 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases as well:- M/s BBG Metal Syndicate

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

capital in nature and being expended wholly and exclusively and for the business of the assessee are fulfilled and therefore the amount contributed by the assessee being employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI is allowable as a deduction 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases as well:- M/s BBG Metal Syndicate

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)

capital gains without granting credit for cost of construction incurred from business income in earlier years; c) The trading results having been accepted, no separate addition under section 69A was sustainable. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to support the submissions. 3.4 In response, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

justice. 5.1 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Id. PCIT has erred in invoking section 263 against the order passed u/s 147 for invalid reasons by stating that there was insufficient time available with the AO to pass the assessment order. The AR argued that the assessment proceedings were carried on for more than 1 year which cannot