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

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

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

56,400 i.e. Rs. 3,82,680/- claimed against water tanker is disallowed and added to the total income of assessee in the head of capital gain under short term capital gain for the relevant year." It was directed by the PCIT that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. Such type

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,670/-. After processing U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 02.09.2014 was issued and duly served to the assessee. The assessee earned long term capital gain of Rs. 65,06,891/- and claimed exemption

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

56 DTR 0212 the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that: “Where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the AO has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is invalid and as such, the impugned

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

56 DTR 0212 the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that: “Where the reasons recorded reflect that the matter requires detailed investigation and further verification, the AO has reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO is invalid and as such, the impugned

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

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 the\nfact that the assessee did file the return. Importantly, even the second factual assertion of\nthe Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded is totally incorrect. He has referred to said\nsum of Rs. 1,18,95,000/- as a sale price of the property. The assessee had produced\nbefore the Assessing Officer

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\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

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

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

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

JAGDISH CHANDRA CHHAPARWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradjagdish Chandra Chhaparwal, Vs Ito, House No.D-500/01, Nehru Ward-5, Road, Sanjay Colony, Bhilwara- Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 (Rajasthan) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahppc6573N Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

section 44AB for the assessment year 1994-95 could not be sustained as the assessee was under a bonafide belief that it did not have to get its accounts audited. Necessary direction to delete the penalty u/s 271F imposed by Ld. AO and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be issue. 2. That on the facts

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

gains of business or profession and accordingly chargeable to Income-tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or ** ** ** M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. [Explanation 1 - For the purposes

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

56. As the appellant has failed to show with the help of any documentary evidence that the interest of Rs. 8,91,535/- was expended by him wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest income of Rs. 11,05,286/-, therefore the disallowance of Rs. 8,91,535/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed

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