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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain (LTCG) on sale of a residential property which was set-off towards purchase of two residential properties - Accordingly, assessee sought exemption under section 54 - Assessing Officer in view of amended provision of section 54 restricted assessee's claim to purchase value of only one property having higher value Whether since amendment to provision of section 54 restricting deduction

MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

Capital Gains Tax on sale of Land. The Case Law relied by\nthe AR of the assessee that of Amritsar Bench in the case Lateef Ahmad Gujree\nVs. ITO in I.T.A. No. 24/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 dated 04.06.2024 and\nother Benches are distinguishable on peculiar facts of the present case.\n5. In is settled law that at the stage

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

5 are dismissed.\n38.\nIn the result, the appeal is dismissed.”\nIn view of above findings of the ld. CIT (A) we are of the view that the gain\nearned by the appellant on sale of shares of Safal Herbal Ltd. is an accommodation\nentry only and no real gain was earned by the appellant. Although the appellant has\nchallenged

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

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 was sold in the financial year 2014-15 for Rs,.1,58,67,077/- through the broker, Shri Suresh Rathi. The assessee

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if— (a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect of such business; (b) the donations made to the institution or fund are not used

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 80IA(5) of the Act, i.e., the losses incurred in the years prior to the initial year need not be adjusted while computing the deduction u/s 80IA in the initial year. Hence the view expressed by Ld PCIT goes against the Circular of CBDT referred above. There should not be any doubt that the circulars issued by CBDT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

5 Smt. Jaya Mogra beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits, but no evidence in the regard was fied No proof, in the form of copy of revenue records etc, was filed by the appellant in support of the claim that the land was agricultural land. 11. The CIT(A) further noted that as the appellant expressed her inability

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

Section 50C of the Act. Hence, the AO reopened the 3 assessment of the year under consideration in the case of both the assessees. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gains in the hands of both the assessees by adopting 25% of the DLC value of Rs.1.44 crores as sale consideration. The AO further noticed that the assessees have deducted

SHYAM SUNDAR INANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 69A on account of cash deposits during the demonetisation period; 2. Addition of Rs.30,25,000/- in respect of a bank account allegedly not belonging to the assessee; 3. Disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A; 4. Estimation of income without rejection of books of account; and 5. Denial of cost of construction in computation of long-term capital

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain\nas undisclosed income merely on the basis of information received from\nInvestigation Wing, Kolkata. The addition so made is neither based on any\nincriminating material found during the course of search nor based on any other\nevidence, but it is merely because of the hypothetical presumption of the AO. The\nAO has not brought on record any cogent

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or (two years) after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has within a period of one year before or (two years) after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that

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

5 Shri Badri Prasad payment of consideration against purchase of these two properties is not established. 4.1 As the assessment getting time barred a final show casue notice dated 20.12.2017 was given to justify the capital gain and deduction claimed. The assessee filed reply to this final show cause notice. From the details so made available the ld. AO observed

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 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) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

5 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. creating a new charge would bring about a dichotomy. In plain terms, the provision in our understanding is a machinery provision and at best provides for a mechanism for processing and computing besides other, fee payable under section 234E for late filing of the statements. 20. Even in absence of section 200A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

5 [CIT(A)], dated 01.06.2023 for the Assessment Year 2013–14. The sole issue raised by the Revenue relates to deletion of addition of Rs.23,80,768/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section