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

2(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

2(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

28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The ld. AO has not considered the law full submission made by the assessee and rectified the assessment u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and make addition of Rs. 20,54,894/- vide order dated 13.06.2018. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

28-06-2019 u/s 271(1)(c) is barred by limitation, so, it is humbly pray the Hon’ble Bench to quash such barred by limitation penalty order and allow this ground of appeal. Ground no. 2 2. The Ld CIT(A)-2, Udaipur erred in charging the penalty of Rs. 729,100/. 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has imposed

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

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate 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 Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

28,54,307/- as: a) The finding recorded by the Ld. AO that the assessee declared a loss of 12,87,327 vide return u/s 139(1) dated 30/09/2008 is perverse and without verification of the records. The original return of income was filed on 31/07/2008 vide acknowledgement no 38031599 showing total income of 12,87,3271- therefore the imposition

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

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 claimed u/s. 54B. In response the assessee filed two agreements for purchase of different lands

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

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

2. Rs. 15, 53,1 12,'-: The Id. C1T(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs. 15, 53,1 12/- made by the Id. AO on account of capital gain by denial of deduction u/s 54B, also erred in not considering the material in their true

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

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

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

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

28 of the assessment order.\nHe also stated that during the course of assessment the registries of the flats sold\nduring the year were obtained and payment details have been verified from the\nregular books of accounts and found that none of the cash transactions as reported\nin the seized pages match with receipts shown in the books of accounts

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

28-07-2017 for the 2 assessment year 2011-12 in their respective hands. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical in nature and arise out of common set of facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of though this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2 At the outset of the hearing

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee submitted return of income on 30.9.2015 declaring income of Rs. 18,93,650 and the original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2017 at total income of Rs. 37,92,518/-. Subsequently a rectification order was passed u/s 154 on 26.4.2018 rectifying the income

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains. The assessee had maintained books of accounts which are subject to audit as per provision of law. The case of assessee was selected for 2 Shri Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur limited scrutiny on various issues and accordingly, the Ld AO had issued a query letter asking various queries/questions including the question about claim

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