PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision order of the Principal\nCommissioner and restoring the assessment order passed by the\nAssessing Officer.\n12. In another case, CIT vs. Sunil Sankhla (2019) 411 ITR 437 (Raj) the\nHon'ble Rajasthan High court held that the proceedings u/s 148 are not\njustified by observing as under:\nThe assessee was in real estate business. During the assessment\nproceedings

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gain which the assessee has not disputed and thus so far as the assessment is concerned same is concluded by the order of the ld. 14 Smt. Jaya Mogra CIT(A) dated 26.03.2013. Thus, in the appellate proceeding the additions of Rs 39.70 lac on account of unexplained credits in bank accounts, was deleted

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

u/s 263. The assessee submitted the working of such allocation as under : a. Industrial Land 8906.32 sq.mts. 1,77,41,389/- X 1992 per sq. mts. b. Agriculture land [2.65 X1936 sq.yards X9] (46173.60 sq. fts. X 1,75,45,968/- 380 sq. fts) c. Other assets :  RCC Construction 1% 13,68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain, he claimed cost of improvement of land, which consisted of construction cost of compound wall amounting to Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur Rs.5,70,500/-. It was the case of Ld PCIT that the AO has not examined this claim. 12. Before Ld PCIT, the assessee contended that the claim of compound wall expenses was duly

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain, he claimed cost of improvement of land, which consisted of construction cost of compound wall amounting to Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur Rs.5,70,500/-. It was the case of Ld PCIT that the AO has not examined this claim. 12. Before Ld PCIT, the assessee contended that the claim of compound wall expenses was duly

RITA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainrita Goyal Vs Pr. Commissioner 113, Golf Course Golf Of Income Tax, Course Central Jaipur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappg 4511 M

capital gains or loss on properties in question. The assessee is aggrieved by the order so passed by Ld PCIT. 5. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. It is settled position of law that the revision proceedings u/s 263

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

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) :-

263 of the Act, merely because he has got a different opinion in the matter. The consideration of the Commissioner as to whether an order is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue must be based on materials on record of the proceedings called for by him. If there are no materials on record

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

gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

gain or u/s 48, 56\nor u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the\nlaw and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any\nprovision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When in the law\nand

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

Revised 2012)} for your ready reference. (PB….) Kindly refer\nClause(d) of sub-para 9.2. under the main head Disclosure para -9 duly highlighted.\nAs the assessee company has adopted the POC method which is the only correct method\nfor income tax purposes considering the various terms and conditions and facts of the\ncase for such recognition of revenue. Hence

MOHAN LAL CHANDAK ,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are treated as

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainlate Smt. Kanta Chandak Vs Income Tax Officer Th L/H Sh. Mohan Lal Ward 1(1), Bikaner Chandak, Prop M/S Chandak & Son’S Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpc 5114 M Mohan Lal Chandak Vs Income Tax Officer Prop M/S Chandak & Son’S Ward 1(1), Bikaner Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpc 5115 L

revision orders passed by ld. PCIT, Bikaner in their respective hands and both the appeals relate to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Since the issue contested in these appeals are emanating from identical set of facts, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee

LATE SMT. KANTA CHANDAK TH. L/H SHRI MOHAN LAL CHANDAK,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), BIKANER

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are treated as

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainlate Smt. Kanta Chandak Vs Income Tax Officer Th L/H Sh. Mohan Lal Ward 1(1), Bikaner Chandak, Prop M/S Chandak & Son’S Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpc 5114 M Mohan Lal Chandak Vs Income Tax Officer Prop M/S Chandak & Son’S Ward 1(1), Bikaner Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqpc 5115 L

revision orders passed by ld. PCIT, Bikaner in their respective hands and both the appeals relate to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Since the issue contested in these appeals are emanating from identical set of facts, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee

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

Revision of monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court-measures for reducing litigation-Reg. Reference is invited to Board’s Circular No. 21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 wherein monetary limits and other conditions for filing departmental appeals (in Income-tax matters) before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal