DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

160/- by way capital for boundary wall. The assessee trust has received 7,43,95,029/- from Dr. Kirti Jain Family Foundation Inc. (in short ‘DKJFFI’) towards corpus donationfor the trust during impugned assessment year. During impugned assessment year, the assessee started construction on the allotted land of UIT (Udaipur Improvement Trust) and also organized various health camp, carried

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. PADMAVATI INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION & SCIENCE TRUST, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 462/Jodh/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle- (Exemptions) Vs. M/S Padmavati Institute Jodhpur. For Medical Education & Science Trust, 38 Polo Ground, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 272 To 273/Jodh/2019 Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2016-17 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Padmavati Institute For Udaipur. Medical Education & Science Trust, 101, Kothi Bagh, Bhatt Ji Ki Badi, Udaipur. [Pan: Aabtp3103C] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kothari, Ca Respondent By Sh. O.P. Meena, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023 Order Per: Bench: A Batch Of Three Appeals Of The Revenue Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udaipur,[In Brevity The ‘Cit (A)’]

160/- by way capital for boundary wall. The assessee trust has received 7,43,95,029/- from Dr. Kirti Jain Family Foundation Inc. (in short ‘DKJFFI’) towards corpus donationfor the trust during impugned assessment year. During impugned assessment year, the assessee started construction on the allotted land of UIT (Udaipur Improvement Trust) and also organized various health camp, carried

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground

DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

160) was added to the total income of the assessee from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). In this case, it is noticed that the assessee had 5 ITA 8/JODH/2020 SHRI DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI, HUF VS ITO, JAISALMER produced relevant documents and details of income from service a/c, e-banking

VIMLA DEVI,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

HARDEV SINGH,GAJSINGHPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMEPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC BANGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMERPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

KULDEEP,GOLUWALA DISTT.HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

JAGDISH PRASAD AND SONS HUF,HANUMANGARH JN. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

RAJESH GOYAL,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. ITO WARD 1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

KALU RAM SUSHIL KUMAR,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

160, Dhan Mandi, Padampur - 335041 2. 353/Jodh/2024 2023- Hardev Singh ITO DGQPS 24 Prop. M/s Abhiraj Ganganagar 4289 J Trading Company, Shop No. 12-B1/2, Dhan Mandi, Gajsinghpur - 335024 3. 705/Jodh/2024 2022- Kuldeep ITO Ward – 1 BUCPK 23 Prop. M/s Sahab Hanumangarh 1975 P Ram Kuldeep, Shop No. 38, Dhan Mandi, Goluwala - 335802 4. 710/Jodh/2024 2023- Jagdish Prasad

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order of the assessing officer without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. PCIT has not been able to establish the pre-requisite conditions for invoking the revisional provision.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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