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 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment years 1949-50 and 1950-51 - Whether where a company acquires properties which it sells or leases out with view to acquiring other properties to be dealt with in same manner, company is not treating them as properties to be enjoyed in shape of rents

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

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

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 68 of the Act and calculated commission @6% as payment of brokerage on the total sale proceeds which comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The observation of the Ld.AO at paragraph 10 of the assessment order on pages 25 & 26 are extracted below:- achieve the predetermined objectives. "10. Show cause notice and reply of the assessee 10.1 In view

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

gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—Entire\nreasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice\nunder section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never filed return of\nincome, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under\nsection

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

capital gain. The on the other hand the Ld DR has relied on DVO report and order of ld CIT (A). 14. The AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention towards the fact that the AO has not referred the matter to DVO, infect in the instant case referred the matter

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

capital gain. The on the other hand the Ld DR has relied on DVO report and order of ld CIT (A). 14. The AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention towards the fact that the AO has not referred the matter to DVO, infect in the instant case referred the matter

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

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

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

26 /05/2025\nORDER\nPER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.\nThese are four appeals filed by the assessee against four separate orders of\nld. CIT (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated 27.08.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T.\nAct, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The\ngrounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

26 /05/2025 ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are four appeals filed by the assessee against four separate orders of ld. CIT (Appeals), Udaipur-2 dated 27.08.2024 passed under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being

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

26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

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

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

26,66,972/- being half of depreciation claimed by assessee on the finding that business of the assessee suspended during the year under consideration and machinery were used for less than 180 days during the year under consideration. Disallowance so made and sustained for the depreciation on the assessee put to use in earlier years. Disallowance so made and sustained

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital expenditure or personal expenses is allowable in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains" of business or profession. The onus lies on the assessee to substantiate by documentary evidences when called upon to the effect that all expenditures claimed in the P&L accounts are laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

gains of business or profession" The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant also approve this view. Ld ITAT in its order for AY 2016-17 in the case of appellant has also computed income of the appellant without making separate addition on account of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act though the appellant had disallowed amount