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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also, about

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also, about

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

gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. In our view, such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing but a change

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The ld. AO has not considered the law full submission made by the assessee and rectified the assessment u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and make addition of Rs. 20,54,894/- vide order dated 13.06.2018. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before

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

68 of the Act is hereby confirmed. Unreported and unexplained expenditure in cash of Rs. 9,35,225/- towards commission for obtaining such bogus long term capital gain, which the AO has added u/s 69C is also confirmed for the same reasons. Addition of Rs. 8,08,458/- to cover up and for certain identified defects in the books

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

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

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 lac u/s 68

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

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

GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,000/- which included the addition of unexplained new cash creditors of Rs. 15,90,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 5,47,700/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

capital gain of Rs. 4,27,217/-. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 25.03.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 07.05.2015. After hearing the assessee, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 9,72,660/- by making additions/disallowances of Rs. 3,68

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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B,\nconstruction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made\nto Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended\nhypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter\nshall fall under which of the specific sections

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

section 68 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A’s) order is as under:- “(i) The appellant has submitted that the addition of Rs. 10 crore has been deleted by the ITAT Jodhpur Bench vide its order dated 19.05.2017 (ITA No. 436/Jodh/2014, A.Y. 2010-11). The appellant has filed the copy of ITATS order dated

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