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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

capital gain arisen due to transaction of penny stock, has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of failure of the assessee to file the return of income and disclose fully and truly the material facts relating to the above transaction. (ii) In the assessment order the AO has made additions

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that

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

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

SHRI TRILOCK CHAND BUGALIYA,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya, Income Tax Officer, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Ward-2, Makrana 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Acvpb6833F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 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)-2, Jodhpur Dated 14.02.2020 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.03.2013 Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Makrana. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya

section 148 as business income. However, the Assessing Officer treated the said activity as capital gain and also invoked provision

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

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

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 as prescribed u/s 139 of the IT. Act, 1961. In view of these facts, there were sufficient reasons to believe that an amount of Rs. 3,28, 87,500/- (1/4th

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

NARAYANI BAI DANGI,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 Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

148. During assessment proceedings, the ld. AO accepted the sale of agricultural land but denied to allow the claim for purchase of agricultural land with persuasion of section 54B of the Act. Accordingly, the claim u/s 54B amount to Rs.15,53,112/- was rejected by the ld. AO and calculated the capital gain

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain." 1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra

SHRI NAINA RAM,JALORE vs. ITO,WARD-1, JALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainish Nainai Ram, Vs The Ito, S/O Dhanna Ram Bheel, Ward-1, Jalore 271, Hatam Ki Dhani, Ramseen Road, Jalore (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ayipr6983P

Capital Gain whereas the entire income is business activity and falls under the income from business and where the provision of section 43CA is applicable from Assessment year 2014-15. (4) That assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal at the date on or before hearing. 4. The main grievance

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. 10 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under

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

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such time limit

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

148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under