ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3. The perusal of the trading account shows that there are various plots which have been purchased prior to 2010 and the same are held as closing stock till date. Assessee failed to establish that why those plots acquired prior to Central Circle 2010 were kept as stock without doing any development activities and kept certain other plots as capital

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

3 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT assessment. For income earned from transfer of assets Ld. CIT(A) upheld the finding of the AO that same is taxable as business income but the alternative plea of assessee that till the date of conversion of capital assets into business asset gain has to treated as capital gain as per provisions

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 as per provisions of section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3

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

Section) New Delhi." 2. The sole issue challenged by the revenue is that the CIT (A)/NFAC was not justified in treatment of the income from the sale of immovable properties as capital gains instead of business income and directing the AO to examine the eligibility of exemption u/s 54F/54EC before giving the order appeal effect. 3. Briefly the fact

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gain at Rs. 7,45,080/- (Rs. 44,10,190 – Rs. 36,65,110). The assessee has not\nshown LTCG in her ITR for the AY 2013-14, accordingly, the AO held that\namount of Rs. 7,45,080/- is liable to be brought for taxation.\nIn view of the above, the AO observing that provisions of clause

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45 of the Act. Reliance further placed on the following case laws: [2020) 114 taxmann.com 508 (A'bad-T); MohdSultanaliPradhan v/s DCIT Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Capital gains Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Purchase of two adjoining flats) Assessment year 2015- 2016 During relevant year, assessee claimed exemption under section

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

section 3 Shri Badri Prasad 45 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 within the time limit as prescribed u/s 139 of the IT. Act, 1961. In view of these facts, there were sufficient reasons to believe that an amount of Rs. 3,28, 87,500/- (1/4th

BABULAL ALIAS BALU RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2012-13

3. THAT the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the deeming of the date of sale of lands as 14.07.2011 contrary to the facts that the actual dates of sale fell in the years 1998- 99, 1999-2000 in view of the sub-clause (v) of clause (47) of section 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with

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

capital in nature and being expended wholly and exclusively and for the business of the assessee are fulfilled and therefore the amount contributed by the assessee being employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI is allowable as a deduction 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases as well:- M/s BBG Metal Syndicate

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

capital in nature and being expended wholly and exclusively and for the business of the assessee are fulfilled and therefore the amount contributed by the assessee being employees’ contribution to PF/ ESI is allowable as a deduction 37 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following cases as well:- M/s BBG Metal Syndicate

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3 raised by the assessee, the fact is that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs. 40,80,721/- and accordingly claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act being the investment in residential house. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of purchase deed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

3 raised by the assessee, the fact is that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown long term capital gain of Rs. 40,80,721/- and accordingly claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act being the investment in residential house. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of purchase deed

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

capital 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3 times of the cost, the profit is worked out as under:- Sale consideration, as per 2 sale deeds of Rs.16.10lacs Each Rs. 32,20,000/- Estimated cost, 1/3 (in round figures) Rs. 10,75,000/- Profit Rs. 21,45,000/-" 12. During the course of hearing of appeal the A.R of the appellant agreed to the estimation of business

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.”

section 50 of the Income Tax Act. On sale of agriculture land it was claimed that the same was not falling within the definition of capital asset the gain, as was situated outside the limits prescribed and was not liable to tax. 4. The objection of the ld PCIT with regard to the allocation sale consideration towards agriculture land

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

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

45,00,000/-.\nThe net result would be same. Therefore, according to this aspect also\nthe act of the assessee is correct for making the entry into the books\nof accounts out of the surrendered income. Hence the addition of Rs.\n25,00,000/- may kindly be requested to be deleted.\"\n7. On the strength of above submissions, he pleaded

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