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 45(2). 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in restricting the claim of expenditure towards construction to Rs. 85,22,137/- as against claim of assessee for Rs. 1,42,03,562/-. " 8. Ld. CIT(A) held that the gain arise to assessee is the Capital Gain and not Business

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

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 of account admitted in course of assessment by the Ld. A.R represented the case, is also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 69C on\naccount. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,97,780/- vide\nassessment order dated 23.03.2022.\n3. On appeal before the ld. CIT (A), the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee after considering the submissions of the assessee.\nNow, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

capital gain which the assessee has not disputed and thus so far as the assessment is concerned same is concluded by the order of the ld. 14 Smt. Jaya Mogra CIT(A) dated 26.03.2013. Thus, in the appellate proceeding the additions of Rs 39.70 lac on account of unexplained credits in bank accounts, was deleted

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the judicial cited upon to drive home to the contentions so raised by both the parties. Undisputedly the case of the assessee was selected for verification of investment of Rs. 48,80,350/-. It is also undisputed that the book results disclosed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and gone through the judicial cited upon to drive home to the contentions so raised by both the parties. Undisputedly the case of the assessee was selected for verification of investment of Rs. 48,80,350/-. It is also undisputed that the book results disclosed

UTTAM CHAND SINGHI,SIROHI vs. ITO, WARD, SIROHI

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmishri Uttam Chand Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar, Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L Shri Bhanwar Lal Singhi Vs Ito Sadar Bazar Ward-Sirohi Sirohi (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acups 5999L

Section 50C of the Act. Hence, the AO reopened the 3 assessment of the year under consideration in the case of both the assessees. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gains in the hands of both the assessees by adopting 25% of the DLC value of Rs.1.44 crores as sale consideration. The AO further noticed that the assessees have deducted

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain of Rs.23,80,768/- earned on sale of shares of ACI Infocom Ltd. as unexplained income. According to the Assessing Officer, the abnormal price rise in the scrip of ACI Infocom was a clear case of penny stock accommodation entry, and therefore, the assessee had converted undisclosed income in the garb of exempt LTCG. 6. Against the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain of Rs.23,80,768/- earned on sale of shares of ACI Infocom Ltd. as unexplained income. According to the Assessing Officer, the abnormal price rise in the scrip of ACI Infocom was a clear case of penny stock accommodation entry, and therefore, the assessee had converted undisclosed income in the garb of exempt LTCG. 6. Against the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain of Rs.23,80,768/- earned on sale of shares of ACI Infocom Ltd. as unexplained income. According to the Assessing Officer, the abnormal price rise in the scrip of ACI Infocom was a clear case of penny stock accommodation entry, and therefore, the assessee had converted undisclosed income in the garb of exempt LTCG. 6. Against the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Capital Gain of Rs.23,80,768/- earned on sale of shares of ACI Infocom Ltd. as unexplained income. According to the Assessing Officer, the abnormal price rise in the scrip of ACI Infocom was a clear case of penny stock accommodation entry, and therefore, the assessee had converted undisclosed income in the garb of exempt LTCG. 6. Against the order

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

capital value of the asset and not any profit or gain. This decision therefore would not apply in the present case. 7 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 22. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.” Thus the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has dismissed the appeal of the assessee deciding in favour of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Gujarat

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

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

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

capital gains declared u/s 11 IA and First Year of Deduction claimed u/s 801A/801AB/801AC/801BA'. Ld.AO-NaFAC reached following finding after verification of the issue- 3.4 Reasons for inference drawn that no variation is required on this issue- On perusal of the details/explanation /submission and documents alongwith details of expenses given made by the assessee, the issues are found explained

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

9. It is also submitted that section 36(1) of the Act which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28. Clause (va) of said section reads as under:- “(va) any sum received by the assessee