ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 @ 60% by the ld. AO. 3.3 Ld. AO also noted from the computation of income filed that the assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business of real

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 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

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 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

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

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 of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing but a change in opinion. The courts across the spectrum have unanimously held that the order

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

capital gain at Rs. 7,45,080/- (Rs. 44,10,190 – Rs. 36,65,110). The assessee has not shown LTCG in her ITR for the AY 2013-14, accordingly, the AO held that amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- is liable to be brought for taxation. In view of the above, the AO observing that provisions of clause

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

SMT. CHANDRA KANTA CHOUDHARY,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Vs. I.T.O. 135, Main Sector, Ward-3, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan No. Abxpc 9134 H Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 10/01/2018 For The Ay. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Passed By Ld Ao As The Order Passed By Ld Ao Without Jurisdiction & Also Contrary To The Guideline Issued By The Hon’Ble Cbdt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 89,39,398/- In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain Particularly When Same Was Never Subject Matter Of Limited Scrutiny. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Made By Ld Ao Which He Could Not Have Made As The Jurisdiction Of The Ld Ao Was Limited.

gain particularly when the land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land not capital assets U/s 2(14) of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that lands in dispute were within municipal limit particularly when same were outside the purview of Municipal limit

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

Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction on the issue which was not subject matter of show cause notice U/s 263 of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

Gains - Purchase and Sale of Shares Additions made on basis of information from investigation directorate that assesseebeneficiary of accommodation entries provided by penny stock companies - tribunal on consideration of period of holding of shares recording finding that long-term capital cains earned not significant amount and assessee had not taken accommodation entries - high court holding no question of law arose

BABULAL ALIAS BALU RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 7. THAT the learned ITO has erred in calculating surcharge, education cess and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 8. THAT any other grounds of appeal may please be permitted to be added, altered, amended or deleted on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 9. THAT the appellant prays that the proceedings under section

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

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

7,50,190/-. While completing the assessment, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,84,76,000/- in the hands of the assessee. Besides, the AO also made an addition of Rs. 48,49,782/- on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain after disallowing the claim under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. The ld. DR strongly opposed the argument of the ld. AR of the assessee saying that the in this case provision of section 275(1)(c) will apply and submitted that even the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) is also merges with

SURENDRA KUMAR MATHUR,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsurendra Kumar Mathur, Vs. I.T.O., Kuldip Vihar, Pal Road, Ward 3(1) Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Akbpm 1606 K Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari Ca Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per Bench : This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jodhpur Dated 16/07/2018 For The A.Y. 2012-13, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 1991-92 At 2,12,500/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 8,50,000/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Partly Not Allowing Deduction For Cost Of Improvement Incurred In Fy 2001-02 At 1,06,250/- Out Of Total Claim Of Rs. 4,25,000/-. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 3,35,554/- On Account Of Fair Market Value U/S 50C Of The Act. The Declared Sale Consideration Deserved To Be Taken For Computing Long Term Gain.

section 50C which provides that stamp valuation adopted should be taken as fair market value for computation of capital gains. 7

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gain of Rs. 40,80,721/- and accordingly claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act being the investment in residential house. During the assessment proceedings, on examination of purchase deed, the ld. AO noted that the property that the assessee purchased is agriculture land as it is evident from the purchase deed filed by the assessee