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

set off benefit of brought forward loss particularly the same has been accepted as genuine in the assessment order passed by the Ld AO. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the rejection of TDS credit of Rs. 46664/- claimed by the assessee and also allowable

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

loss when\nsuch income from interest, rent etc. is not related to the specified business\nclaimed by assessee.\n8. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in\nCircular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT, New Delhi.\"\nThat the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the ground

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

loss when\nsuch income from interest, rent etc. is not related to the specified business\nclaimed by assessee.\n8. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in\nCircular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT, New Delhi.\"\nThat the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the ground

ADITYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU / ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

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

Capital Gain Gain(Short term) - (P.B. Page no. 35 & 36) 3. Dividend from mutual 1373140/ Schedule EI Fund as exempt - (P.B. Page no. 55 & 56) income u/s 10 of the Act. b] It is submitted that While uploading ITR due to typical or technical mistake assessee company had wrongly reported the exempt income of dividend from mutual fund amounting

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

loss accounts and computation of the total income in respect of all the creditors/lender were furnished and when it has been found that the loans were received through cheques and the loan account were duly reflected in the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.33,55,011/-. Under the circumstances, no question

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

loss accounts and computation of the total income in respect of all the creditors/lender were furnished and when it has been found that the loans were received through cheques and the loan account were duly reflected in the balance sheet, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs.33,55,011/-. Under the circumstances, no question

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

loss. The ld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on\n19.03.2021(PB1), on the reason that” Information received from ITBA\nunder AIMS, Multi Year\nNMS Priority. 1. As per information code SFT 004, the assessee has deposited cash in account\nother than current account amount of Rs.1,75,20,300/- during the F.Y. 2016-17 assessee has not\nfiled

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

gain tax will be applicable. The ld. AO in assessment decided that the land is within 8 K.M. of the Municipal Area, so the nature of land is not agricultural, as per the Income I.T.A.No. 492/Jodh/2023 4 &S.A.No.10/Jodh/2023 Tax Act. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

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

loss when such income from interest, rent etc. is not related to the specified business claimed by assessee. 8. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in Circular No. 05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 issued by the CBDT, New Delhi." That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the ground

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

capital gains' and\n(v) 'income from other sources' cannot at all be adjusted against\nunexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon.\nGujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure\nshould be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High Court\nthe source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence adjustment

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) :-

set off against other business of assessee in terms of Sections 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

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

loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: (iv) disallowance of expenditure (or increase in income) indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return." 4. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear that the said cl. (iv) would come into operation when the tax auditor had suggested

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

loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely: (iv) disallowance of expenditure (or increase in income) indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return." 4. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear that the said cl. (iv) would come into operation when the tax auditor had suggested

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

losses to some extent by offering higher rates in Shail Enclave project\nwhich was abandoned later on.\n(b) The rates agreed upon the “Sanchi Enclave” project are duly supported with the\nsale agreement of relevant flats Schedule –5. Copy of the sale agreements available\nwith the assessee are enclosed herewith in support of sale price agreed with the buyers

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, 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

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

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

loss of 12,87,327 vide return u/s 139(1) dated 30/09/2008 is perverse and without verification of the records. The original return of income was filed on 31/07/2008 vide acknowledgement no 38031599 showing total income of 12,87,3271- therefore the imposition of penalty on 2574654/- ( 12,87,327/-+12,87,327/-) is patently erroneous and speaks about arbitrary