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

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

70,826/- as undisclosed income without mentioning any section of the IT Act, without appreciating the submission in this respect. Accordingly, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,18,626/-.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) considered the submissions furnished before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

3 times of the cost, the profit is worked out as under:- Sale consideration, as per 2 sale deeds of Rs.16.10lacs Each Rs. 32,20,000/- Estimated cost, 1/3 (in round figures) Rs. 10,75,000/- Profit Rs. 21,45,000/-" 12. During the course of hearing of appeal the A.R of the appellant agreed to the estimation of business

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

70,00,000/-\ntherefore the amount belongs to the difference in stock should not be\ntaxed again, because by the act of Ld. Assessing officer it amounts to\ndouble taxation, which is not permissible in the Income Tax Laws.\nTherefore, it is hereby humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.\n25,00,000/- may kindly be deleted.\nAlternatively if this

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

70,826/- as undisclosed income without mentioning any section\nof the IT Act, without appreciating the submission in this respect. Accordingly,\nthe AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,18,626/-.Aggrieved by\nthe order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld.\nCIT (A) considered the submissions furnished before

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

70,826/- as undisclosed income without mentioning any section\nof the IT Act, without appreciating the submission in this respect. Accordingly,\nthe AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,18,626/-.Aggrieved by\nthe order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld.\nCIT (A) considered the submissions furnished before

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

70,826/- as undisclosed income without mentioning any section\nof the IT Act, without appreciating the submission in this respect. Accordingly,\nthe AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 52,18,626/-.Aggrieved by\nthe order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld.\nCIT (A) considered the submissions furnished before

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

70%, as the same might not have been incurred / paid by the assessee at all. Considering these facts as observed by the ld. AO it was evident that the book results declared by the assessee suffers from various defects and deserves to be rejected by invoking provisions of 145(3) of the Act. While holding so ld. AO also noted

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

70 Taxman 353/199 ITR 67, and held thus: “ 9. One aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. As pointed out already, the crucial words in the section require that the assessee has to obtain in cash or in any other manner some benefit. That part

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain, he claimed cost of improvement of land, which consisted of construction cost of compound wall amounting to Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur Rs.5,70,500/-. It was the case of Ld PCIT that the AO has not examined this claim. 12. Before Ld PCIT, the assessee contended that the claim of compound wall expenses was duly

VISHNU GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

capital gain, he claimed cost of improvement of land, which consisted of construction cost of compound wall amounting to Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. PCIT, Central, Jaipur Rs.5,70,500/-. It was the case of Ld PCIT that the AO has not examined this claim. 12. Before Ld PCIT, the assessee contended that the claim of compound wall expenses was duly

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) :-

70, 71 & 72 of the Act prior to exercise of option of 'initial assessment year'. The losses arising in 'eligible business', if any, subsequent to earmarking of 'initial assessment year' shall however continue to be governed by embargo placed in Section 80IA(5) of the Act. 10. Hence, in the light of above discussion and in consonance with the decision

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

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest