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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

46,980/- against rental income in the computation of income. The loan received for construction of building which was given on rent and against such rental income the claim of deduction of interest paid is allowable deduction as per law. However the ld AO and Id CIT(A) without analyzing the real & true facts and also provisions

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

46,980/- against rental income in the computation of income. The loan received for construction of building which was given on rent and against such rental income the claim of deduction of interest paid is allowable deduction as per law. However the ld AO and Id CIT(A) without analyzing the real & true facts and also provisions

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

46,700/- on nine occasions was reflected in his bank account, whereas he had made no such deposits. The assessee filed all the evidences in support of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) left the legal issue unanswered. He set aside the case to the AO to decide it afresh. 4. Now the assessee

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

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under: 5. Decision: I have carefully considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order passed by the Ld.AO

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

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

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

46 & 47/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2012-13 & 2013-14) Vishnu Goyal Vs Pr. Commissioner 113 Golf Course, of Income Tax, Jodhpur Central, Jaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAPPG 4513 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari (CA) Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of 04/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: B.R. BASKARAN

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

46 & 47/Jodh/2022 (ASSESSMENT YEARS- 2012-13 & 2013-14) Vishnu Goyal Vs Pr. Commissioner 113 Golf Course, of Income Tax, Jodhpur Central, Jaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAPPG 4513 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari (CA) Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of 04/11/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: B.R. BASKARAN

M/S. OXCIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeym/S. Oxcia Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, C/O Kalani Income-Tax, Circle- & Co.,Chartered Tds,Udaipur. Accountants, 5Th Floor, “The Mile Stone” Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur-15. Pan: Aagcm5419E (Appellant) (Respondent)

46 of the Transfer of Property Act which prescribed that where immovable property is transferred for a consideration by persons having distinct interest therein, the transferors are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to share in the consideration equally. So, in this case, since there is no contract to the contrary could be pointed

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

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