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

iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.” The Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of CemetileIndustries

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

capital gain is concerned. The word “assessee” must be given.a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heir also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word ‘assessee’ as that would frustrate the object of granting the exemption and what is more, in the instance case, the very same assessee, immediately after

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

capital expenditure or personal expenses is allowable in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains" of business or profession. The onus lies on the assessee to substantiate by documentary evidences when called upon to the effect that all expenditures claimed in the P&L accounts are laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36,65,110/-.\nIf some shares were purchased @ 15.93 per share, some other shares may have been\npurchased on higher rate as well as some on lower rate. Some shares were sold at lower\nrate and some on higher rate. Shares were purchased and sold on different dates on\ndifferent rates. When the AO has total purchase and sale price

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. MANJULA DEVI JAIN ,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Manjula Devi Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, 1-35, Housing Board, Ward-2, Pali. Pali. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampj4848D

gains was chargeable on such sale of land. The addition in relation to sale of land relating to Prasann Devi was deleted. 4 ITA 478/Jodh/2018 & SA 13/Jodh/2019 Manjula Devi Jain Vs ITO However, in relation to agriculture land belonging to Samandar Khan since the details of his assessment was not available the addition in relation to his land was sustained

SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL SAMDANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

section 57(iii), may have a direct or indirect connection with the making or earned of such income. If the assessee has bona fide and voluntarily incurred expenditure out of commercial expediency, the expenditure is deductible and it is immaterial whether it is beneficial for the assessee to incur such expenditure or whether it is expedient on his part

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

iii) of clause (c)\nof sub-section (8), such business\n(iv) (ab) on or after the 1st day of April,\n2010, where the specified business is in\nthe nature of building and operating a\nnew hospital with at least one hundred\nbeds for patients;\nThe new hospital came up after 1.4.2010\nand is more than 100 beds

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

36(1)(iii). Similarly, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC) has held that since the advances were far below the available 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

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

iii) of clause (c)\nof sub-section (8), such business\n(iv) (ab) on or after the 1st day of April,\n2010, where the specified business is in\nthe nature of building and operating a\nnew hospital with at least one hundred\nbeds for patients;\nThe new hospital came up after 1.4.2010\nand is more than 100 beds

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

iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (8), such business (iv) (ab) on or after the 1st day of April, 2010, where the specified business is in the nature of building and operating a new hospital with at least one hundred beds for patients; The new hospital came up after 1.4.2010 and is more than 100 beds

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, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

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