MAHENDRA RATHI,BIKANER vs. ITO, BIKANER

short term capital gain on sale of Agriculture\nLand ignoring that these Land is not part of capital

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

Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

term capital gain. While so\nobserving, the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent\nevidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown company worth Rs.\n5/- had jumped to Rs. 485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\nheld that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there

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

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

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

Short Term Capital Gain. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining addition of interest

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. The fact

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

short term capital gains declared u/s 11 IA and First Year of Deduction claimed u/s 801A/801AB/801AC/801BA'. Ld.AO-NaFAC

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) :-

short issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the assessee is entitled in law for claim of deduction of income arising from eligible business during the year under s. 80IA(1) r/w.s. 80IA(4) of the Act without making adjustments towards losses arising in the earlier assessment years prior to exercise of option of 'initial assessment

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

short question\nis whether this surrendered income is to be taxed u/s 115BBE\nor under the normal provision. It is pertinent to note that the\n assessment year involved herein is accounting year for\n assessment year 2014-15.\n15. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances, we\nfind that this issue, whether surrendered income during the\ncourse

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

term used in the statement i.e. “Unbilled\nSales”. The term is being used after considering the term “Unbilled revenue” guided in\nthe process of determination of income/revenue which is required to be recognized under\nthe percentage of completion method (POC) applicable for finalization of accounts as\nwell as recognition of revenue of Real Estate Business conducted by the assessee

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

short Act ]. 2. The grounds of following raised by the revenue in this appeal reads as follows: ‘’1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) is justified in estimating net profit @0.11% and ignoring that the AO has categorically held that 70% of expenses Rs. 46,25,75,450/- not subject

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

short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before

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

short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before