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)

gain & short term capital offered by him. In response, the assessee vide submission dated 5.11.2019 contended that few properties were purchased for investment purposes and the same were held as part of fixed assets in the preceding years. Accordingly the sale of these properties was considered as sale of capital assets rather than stock in trade. Ld. AO considered

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

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

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

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

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

13. This clause is inserted by the Finance Act with effect from 1st April, 1988. The Explanation to this clause is read very carefully. "Due date" has been explained stating that : means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order

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

13. This clause is inserted by the Finance Act with effect from 1st April, 1988. The Explanation to this clause is read very carefully. "Due date" has been explained stating that : means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order

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

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

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, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. PCIT

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13 (2) of general clauses act. The appellant has thus rightly claimed exemption u/s 54F for the investment in two residential houses within frame of section 54F. Case laws relied by the appellant has been wrongly interpreted. These are reiterated with prayer for the reference. 3. Once exemption u/s 54F has been allowed in assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

13. 1.2 The Ld CIT(A) has carried out an enhancement by making an addition of Rs 21.45 lac on account of profit on transfer of land, simultaneously, action for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income was initiated by issue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) on dated 18-09-2018. 1.3 Since

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.

section 11(2) and then to adjudicate the tax liability of the assessee." (b) Under these circumstances; the order as passed by A.O. is against the provisions of law & requested to quash.” 6. On the contrary, the ld DR has submitted that when the scrutiny assessment was taken up on the issue of “large cash deposits in savings bank account

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

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 the assessment proceedings through notice u/s 142(1) dated 01/08/2018 and19/09/2018 the AO had raised

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

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

2. On our submissions the objection not decided by the ld. AO the ld. CIT(A) has stated only that there is no requirement under the law for passing a specific speaking order while framing the assessment u/s 153A. Nevertheless the AO has dealt the arguments of the appellant during the assessment proceedings as admitted by the appellant. Therefore, argument

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

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

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, by CPC Bengaluru. 2 Aditya Builders and Developers 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)/NFAC has grossly erred in violating the principal of faceless appeal as announced for justice of honest taxpayers

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

capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by him, merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

capital of the assessee and the AO 6 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. was not able to pin pointedly come to a definite conclusion which proves the nexus between interest bearing loans vis-à-vis interest free loan/advances, disallowance has been rightly deleted. Further, when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons to whom

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

13,15,50,000/-. The sold property in question is situated within the 8 kilometers of Municipal Limit; hence this transaction was chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 3 Shri Badri Prasad 45 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 within the time limit

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

2)\nshould be considered from the date of letter filed by the assessee and not from the date\nwhen the return of income was filed under s. 139.\nCIT v/s Fomento Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd 106 CCH 2019 (Bombay H.C. (Goa\nBench) dt. 13.09.2019\n2. On our submissions the objection not decided