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

loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income." Not for “deduction claimed under the head capital gain”. However, during the assessment proceedings the AO had also made substantial verification & examination on the other issue as the case may be taken up for comprehensive scrutiny, without following legal procedure and necessary approval of the competent authority

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

SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR TONGIA ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.485/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Rajendra Kumar Tongia Income Tax Officer-Ward-3 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Bhilwara बनाम 106, Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road Rajasthan / Vs. Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abjpt-2415-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

set-off from salaried income, the loss was not claimed in the return of income. Therefore, capital investment was not in the nature of business but assessable under the head capital gains

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

set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant

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

GULAB DEVI KHANT,BANSWARA vs. ACIT, , CHITTORGARH.

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainismt. Gulab Devi Khant, Vs The Acit, W/O Late Shri Natwar Lal Chittorgarh Khanat, Khantwara, Banswara (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss of Rs. 9,91,081/-. However, the assessment was framed at an income of Rs. 17,68,000/- which included the addition of unexplained new cash creditors of Rs. 15,90,000/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 64,918/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act and levied the penalty

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains. The assessee had maintained books of accounts which are subject to audit as per provision of law. The case of assessee was selected for 2 Shri Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur limited scrutiny on various issues and accordingly, the Ld AO had issued a query letter asking various queries/questions including the question about claim

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