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

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed the long-term 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

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.\n4.\nNow, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.\nThe first ground of appeal before us is a legal ground relates to passing the\norder under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 without\nappreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought\non record

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 48 of IT Act which is mandatory and still available on the statue therefore the order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable.” 3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 148. The addition was made related to deposit of cash in bank account amount of Rs.5

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

PARKASH SINWAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, WARD, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

capital gains. o The land under consideration was also an agricultural land outside the stipulated threshold and therefore, gains arising from the sale of said land were exempt in the hands of the Appellant and not disclosed as taxable income in the Return of Income of the Appellant. o The sale proceeds of said property were duly deposited

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains. The assessee had maintained books of accounts which are subject to audit as per provision of law. The case of assessee was selected for 2 Shri Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur limited scrutiny on various issues and accordingly, the Ld AO had issued a query letter asking various queries/questions including the question about claim

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

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