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

v. Dilip Kumar & Co2018 (9) SCC 1, has held that (iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

1. CIT_v. Lal Singh [2010] 325 ITR 588/ 8 taxmann.com 114(Punj. &Har.):- In this case, one late Pushpa Devi sold her agricultural land for Rs. 89,75,000 in the assessment year 1996-97. In response to notice under section 148, the return was filed by the legal heir on net taxable income

ANIL KUMAR NUWAL,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainanil Kumar Nuwal, Vs A.C.I.T., 9, Main Sector, Shastri Circle- Bhilwara. Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan- 311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aavpn 4375 L

V), Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Dist. Medak, Telangana for Rs. 1,58,00,000/- against which the assessee has claimed the deduction of Rs. 1,04,59,000/- u/s 54B of the Act and the assessee has also purchased the agricultural land on 10th May 2016, Situated at Aaraji No. 944 – 03 Biswa, Aaraji No. 945 – 4 Bigha 4 BiswaAaraji

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

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)

1. The nature of business in the column no 10(a) of the form no. 3CDis mentioned as 'builder' and sub-sector is mentioned as 'property developers'. Once assessee is into business of 'property developers', it is not open to him to treat certain property sales as capital transactions and others as business transaction. 2. Assessee did not furnish

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444 (Delhi HC). 1.6 Under the circumstances, It is proved herein above that impugned penalty order dated 28-06-2019 u/s 271(1)(c) is barred by limitation, so, it is humbly pray the Hon’ble Bench to quash such barred by limitation penalty order and allow this ground of appeal. Ground

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

9,97,780/- vide assessment order dated 23.03.2022. 3. On appeal before the ld. CIT (A), the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee after considering the submissions of the assessee. Now, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above. 4. 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

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.”

v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294/5 Taxman 1 (SC), to contend that when a machinery provision is not provided, the levy itself would fail. The decision of Supreme Court in case of B C Srinivasa Setty (supra) was rendered in entirely different background. Issue involved was of charging capital gain on transfer of a capital asset. In case

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

1), Jodhpur. 2. THAT the learned CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in upholding the invoking of and proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned ITO & issuing notice under section 148 by him due to various reasons including the facts that the learned ITO did not have any "Reason to Believe

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)

1) on 28.09.2013. 5.1 The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) on 27.12.2017 determining the income at Rs.30,55,730/-. In doing so, he treated the Long Term 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

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)

1) on 28.09.2013. 5.1 The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) on 27.12.2017 determining the income at Rs.30,55,730/-. In doing so, he treated the Long Term 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

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)

1) on 28.09.2013. 5.1 The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) on 27.12.2017 determining the income at Rs.30,55,730/-. In doing so, he treated the Long Term 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

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)

1) on 28.09.2013. 5.1 The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153A read with section 143(3) on 27.12.2017 determining the income at Rs.30,55,730/-. In doing so, he treated the Long Term 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

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

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