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

section 2(4) of the Act, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments of House of Lords and other decisions of the 10 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT Court of Appeal etc., and then, at page 609 of 35 ITR it was held as under : … 12. Then in final concluding para, after recapitulating the relevant facts

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

section 2(4) of the Act, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments of House 11 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT of Lords and other decisions of the Court of Appeal etc., and then, at page 609 of 35 ITR it was held as under : … 12. Then in final concluding para, after recapitulating the relevant facts

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

gains of business or profession". It is submitted that after treating the employees’ contribution as income of the assessee, once it is paid or a liability is accrued for payment being an ascertained liability, the same is allowable as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure

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

gains of business or profession". It is submitted that after treating the employees’ contribution as income of the assessee, once it is paid or a liability is accrued for payment being an ascertained liability, the same is allowable as an expenditure under section 37 of the Act. 12. While section 37 provides that the expenditure should not be an expenditure

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

2). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in restricting the claim of expenditure towards construction to Rs. 85,22,137/- as against claim of assessee for Rs. 1,42,03,562/-. " 8. Ld. CIT(A) held that the gain arise to assessee is the Capital Gain and not Business Income. Relevant

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the assessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name and office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void. 6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void. It is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition and quash

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

2) had been issued on 31/08/2017. The A.O. mentioned the reason for selection of limited scrutiny is as under: - "Following issue(s) have been identified for examination: i. Whether capital gains/ loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income." During the assessment proceedings through notice u/s 142(1) dated 01/08/2018 and19/09/2018 the AO had raised

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed the long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt under section10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd (in short, 'scrip'). The assessee purchased 2800 shares on 09/03/2012 for Rs.2,80,000/-. The said scrip

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

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 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 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

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

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.

section 50C which provides that stamp valuation adopted should be taken as fair market value for computation of capital gains. 7. After careful consideration of the matter, we find that there is minor difference of Rs. 2,35

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

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

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 50 of the Income