ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also noted from the computation of income filed that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business of real

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

section 45(2). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in restricting the claim of expenditure towards construction to Rs. 85,22,137/- as against claim of assessee for Rs. 1,42,03,562/-. " 8. Ld. CIT(A) held that the gain arise to assessee is the Capital Gain and not Business

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, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would have been carved out from his land 9 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT alone, they could not have been

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, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would have been carved out from his land alone, they could not have been sold for want of network of roads being

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

10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain which was not declared in the return.", "held": "The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and added it to the total income, also adding commission expenses under section 69C. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, in its order, held that the share

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

10,49,300/-. His case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) had been issued on 31/08/2017. The A.O. mentioned the reason for selection of limited scrutiny is as under: - "Following issue(s) have been identified for examination: i. Whether capital gains/ loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income." During

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed the long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt under section10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd (in short, 'scrip'). The assessee purchased 2800 shares on 09/03/2012 for Rs.2,80,000/-. The said

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

Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessary.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an employee and working as professor at Mohan Lal Sukhadia

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case

BABULAL ALIAS BALU RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 7. THAT the learned ITO has erred in calculating surcharge, education cess and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 8. THAT any other grounds of appeal may please be permitted to be added, altered, amended or deleted on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 9. THAT the appellant prays that the proceedings under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10 Smt. Jaya Mogra 7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. DR strongly opposed the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee saying that the in this case provision of section 275(1)(c) will apply and submitted that even the appeal filed before