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

capital gain, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would have been carved out from his land 9 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT alone, they could not have been

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

capital gain, but it was found to be a business income, and for that, the Assessing Officer found, that the original land is surrounded by many lands of his near relatives and family members, and if the plots would have been carved out from his land alone, they could not have been sold for want of network of roads being

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

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 the ld. PCIT passed the order U/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the order

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

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

35,225/- towards commission for obtaining such bogus long term capital gain, which the AO has added u/s 69C is also confirmed for the same reasons. Addition of Rs. 8,08,458/- to cover up and for certain identified defects in the books of account admitted in course of assessment by the Ld. A.R represented the case, is also hereby

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

SURENDRA KUMAR MATHUR,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsurendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Akbpm 1606 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari Ca Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 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)-1, Jodhpur Dated 16/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 1991-92 At 2,12,500/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 2001-02 At 1,06,250/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 3,35,554/- On Account Of Fair Market Value U/S 50C Of The Act. The Declared Sale Consideration Deserved To Be Taken For Computing Long Term Gain.

35,554/- on the basis of value as determined for stamp duty purposes as against actual sale consideration received at Rs. 61,00,000/-. The CIT(A) sustained the said addition in view of section 50C which provides that stamp valuation adopted should be taken as fair market value for computation of capital gains

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.”

35,87,112/-. 3. The assessee during the year had sold certain industrial land, factory building and agriculture land. On sale of land being long term capital gain was shown, and on factory building and plant and machinery being depreciable asset the computation of gain on transfer of such asset was made as per section

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

35,011/-. The details of which are listed at page 2 of Assessing Officer order. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the assessee had filed before Assessing Officer the confirmations with name, address, PAN Number, copy of ledger account, copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account, copy of Income Tax returns and computation

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

35,011/-. The details of which are listed at page 2 of Assessing Officer order. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the assessee had filed before Assessing Officer the confirmations with name, address, PAN Number, copy of ledger account, copy of balance sheet and profit and loss account, copy of Income Tax returns and computation

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

capital gain and also invoked provision of section 50C. The ld. AR submitted that from the beginning assessee had intention to sell the land and earn profit therefore, immediately assessee got the land converted into non agricultural and then sold it, all these things explained assessee’s intention to do business. The assessee is a teacher however

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—Entire\nreasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice\nunder section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never filed return of\nincome, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under\nsection

GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 5,47,700/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal ex-parte by observing as under:- "2.1 The form of appeal before the CIT (Appeals

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

35 for communication was KUKIVINAY@YAHOO.COM\nNFAC.\n4. That CIT (Appeals) issued 3 hearing notices on 10.02.2021, 05.06.2023\nand 06.07.2023 and all notices were communicated to email\naddress (i.e. KARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM).\n5. That the email address (i.e.\nKARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM) was not operated by me &b the email holder\nis not in my touch.\n6. That in the beginning of Month

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

capital gain. The on the other hand the Ld DR has relied on DVO report and order of ld CIT (A). 14. The AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention towards the fact that the AO has not referred the matter to DVO, infect in the instant case referred the matter

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

capital gain. The on the other hand the Ld DR has relied on DVO report and order of ld CIT (A). 14. The AR of the assessee has also drawn our attention towards the fact that the AO has not referred the matter to DVO, infect in the instant case referred the matter

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

capital gain declared by the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 50C. The imposition of penalty on addition of 1,42,000/- is erroneous as: a) The finding recorded by the Ld. AO that the Hon'ble Tribunal confirmed the addition of 142000/- is patently erroneous as the Hon'ble Tribunal only confirmed the direction