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

31-3-1982 which were sold on 3-8-1988 before taking possession and it claimed surplus on sale of premises as capital gain, as office premises by assessee were acquired with an intention to resell and not use, same could be treated as stock in trade and not as investment and thus, surplus was assessable as business income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

31-03-2019. Our reliance is placed on principle decided in following judicial pronouncements : PCIT vs JKD CAPITAL AND FINLEASE LTD. ( 2015) 378 ITR 0614 (Delhi HC) CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444 (Delhi HC). 1.6 Under the circumstances, It is proved herein above that impugned penalty order dated 28-06-2019 u/s 271(1

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

31,560/- . The AO completed the assessment on 26/12/2018 determining totaling total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,07,35,280/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT had issued a show cause notice dated 22/02/2021 which was served upon the assessee. In response to the notice U/s 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted reply before the ld. PCIT and finally

MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in\npassing ex-parte non-speaking appeal order ignoring that the appellant\nhas not been served upon notice for hearing of appeal. Due to non-linking\nof PAN - Aadhar, the appellant didn't receive notice properly which\nresulted into ex-parte appeal order.\n2. Under the facts

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

capital gain”. However, during the assessment proceedings the AO had also made substantial verification & examination on the other issue as the case may be taken up for comprehensive scrutiny, without following legal procedure and necessary approval of the competent authority, conducting an enquiry on the issue which is outside the limited scrutiny would be beyond the jurisdiction

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

capital gains as per provision of law and disclosed the same in her return of A.Y 2016-17. 4 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO 4. It was submitted that from the bank statement, it can be observed that the assessee has received the sales consideration from sale of property in 2014 & 2015 and thereafter has withdrawn the cash

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 the foundation of reopening

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 the foundation of reopening

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

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 perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts

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

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

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

section 2(14) of the Act, any agricultural land situated beyond the stipulated threshold of the municipality/ cantonment board shall not be considered as a capital asset for the purposes of computing 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

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31, 2010 showed that the assessee had\nconverted the land to stock on April 1, 2009 and had claimed short\nterm capital gains, that however in his letter dated January 28, 2015,\nhe had stated that he had purchased the land in the financial year\n2006-07 during the course of his business activity and had held it as\nstock

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

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

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost of acquisition and resultant capital gain, the valuation adopted by the DVO has serious defect. The AR of the assessee has pointed out the various defects such

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

31,75,000.00 + Rs. 2,50,000.00). The AR of the assessee also submitted that the report of the DVO should not be taken as the basis for calculating the cost of acquisition and resultant capital gain, the valuation adopted by the DVO has serious defect. The AR of the assessee has pointed out the various defects such

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

31,099/- pertaining to M-77 unit, which was not eligible for set off, since this unit commenced operation from current year, i.e., AY 2017-18 only. (d) The AO has allowed benefit of exemption u/s sec. 10(38) on the gains arising on sale of a security named “JM Arbitrage Annual Bonus Option”. The AO has not examined