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," 9. After adjudication of the issues raised in favour of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) restored the matter before assessing officer holding that: "In the assessment proceedings, the AO has not given any finding relating to eligibility of appellant's claim of exemption u/s.54F/54EC of the Act as the AO had treated the income from sale of properties

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains, the Para 11 & No adverse pg 12 of the assessee acquired two residential flats 12 of the inference order namely a) Mayurshrishti for Rs. 38,03010/- order at drawn by ld. and b) Shanti Gardens for Rs. 37,73,590/- page No. 80- CIT(A) comprising two agreements.” 81 of PB 4. CIT v/s D Ananda Basappa

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

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

Gains - Purchase and Sale of Shares Additions made on basis of information from investigation directorate that assesseebeneficiary of accommodation entries provided by penny stock companies - tribunal on consideration of period of holding of shares recording finding that long-term capital cains earned not significant amount and assessee had not taken accommodation entries - high court holding no question of law arose

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

11. In ITA No. 01/Jodh/2022, as regards the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee, we find from the order of the assessment that the assessee has offered rent income of Rs. 8,02,316/- received from the 3 tenants as under:- (1) Received rent from basement Rs. 3,50,000/- (2) Rent from SBI Bank

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

11. In ITA No. 01/Jodh/2022, as regards the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee, we find from the order of the assessment that the assessee has offered rent income of Rs. 8,02,316/- received from the 3 tenants as under:- (1) Received rent from basement Rs. 3,50,000/- (2) Rent from SBI Bank

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)

11,25,000/- under section 69A in respect of cash deposits; II. Addition of Rs.30,25,000/- related to the bank account allegedly not belonging to the assessee; III. Consideration of cost of construction while computing long- term capital gain; IV. Allowability of deduction under section 80C amounting to Rs.38,320/-. 5.2. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

4 Smt. Jaya Mogra Circle-02, Udaipur vide order no. 15 of 2010-11 dated 28.01.2011 u/s 127 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur. Accordingly, the notices were sent to the assessee and the assessment was completed by making the addition of Rs. 39.70 lacs. The additions of Rs 39.70 lac on account

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

4 Shri Badri Prasad Sale Consideration Rs. 3,28,87,500/- Less: Transfer expense Rs. 3,28,875/- Less: Indexed Cost of Acq. FY 1981-82 274000/100*852 Rs. 23,34,480/- Rs. 3,02,24,145/- Deduction u/s 54B Rs. 3,02,24,145/- Capital Gain Nil The assessee was asked to file evidence regarding sale, transfer expenses, exemption

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

capital gains declared u/s 11 IA and First Year of Deduction claimed u/s 801A/801AB/801AC/801BA'. Ld.AO-NaFAC reached following finding after verification of the issue- 3.4 Reasons for inference drawn that no variation is required on this issue- On perusal of the details/explanation /submission and documents alongwith details of expenses given made by the assessee, the issues are found explained

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

4 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction of tax at source is filed by the person responsible to do so and authorizes the Assessing Officer to make certain adjustments which

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

capital gains arising from sale of property and further made an addition of Rs.12,52,000/- treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

capital gains arising from sale of property and further made an addition of Rs.12,52,000/- treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

capital gains arising from sale of property and further made an addition of Rs.12,52,000/- treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The total assessed income was determined at Rs.72,52,000/-, and consequential demand was raised against the assessee 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal

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

4,21,933/-. The ld.\nAO has disallowed this claim for want of verification. A perusal\nof the record would indicate that inspite of survey carried out at\nthe premises of the assessee, the ld. AO was unable to pin-point\nas to why direct and indirect expenses are not required for\nearning a huge income of more than Rs.72

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)

4. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital

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)

4. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital

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)

4. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital