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

24)(x) of the Act. Further the said amount is allowable as a ‘deduction’ under section 36 of the Act wherein section 36(1) provides ‘The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28’. 11. Section

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

24)(x) of the Act. Further the said amount is allowable as a ‘deduction’ under section 36 of the Act wherein section 36(1) provides ‘The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28’. 11. Section

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

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

24,145/- Capital Gain Nil The assessee was asked to file evidence regarding sale, transfer expenses, exemption claimed u/s. 54B. In response the assessee filed two agreements for purchase of different lands in support of claim of exemption u/s. 54B. The details of these purchases submitted is reiterated here in below: S. No. Details of Seller Purchaser Date Amount

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.\n4.\nNow, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.\nThe first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the\norder under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without\nappreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought\non record

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 24, there are no such restriction that the assessee will be denied the deduction of interest payable of capital borrowed on which the income is offered. Since the dispute is not related to any of the other aspects. We are of the considered view extent of area had not given on rent cannot be disallowed. Based on these observations

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 24, there are no such restriction that the assessee will be denied the deduction of interest payable of capital borrowed on which the income is offered. Since the dispute is not related to any of the other aspects. We are of the considered view extent of area had not given on rent cannot be disallowed. Based on these observations

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

capital gains. o The land under consideration was also an agricultural land outside the stipulated threshold and therefore, gains arising from the sale of said land were exempt in the hands of the Appellant and not disclosed as taxable income in the Return of Income of the Appellant. o The sale proceeds of said property were duly deposited

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

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

gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\n2\nITA No. 541,544and 545/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2018-19)\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed

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

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with section 801A

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

24,592/-made on account of disallowance of\ndeduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by\nholding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming\ndeduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed\nto comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read\nwith section 801A

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

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

24,000/- and disallowed balance amount of Rs.2,86,000/-. Since the assets were put to use for less than 180 days only, the AO disallowed 50% of depreciation claimed by the assessee. The AO also disallowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from out of other expenses, since some of the expenses were supported by self made vouchers