M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The issue involved in the instant appeals relates to the deposit of employees’ contributions qua ESI & PF after the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts, however, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, resulting into making

M/S. PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHITTORGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.95 & 96/Jodh/2021 (यनिाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2018-2019 & 2019-2020)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The issue involved in the instant appeals relates to the deposit of employees’ contributions qua ESI & PF after the due date as prescribed in the relevant Acts, however, before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, resulting into making

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

250. 4. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, (Judicial Section) New Delhi." 2. The sole issue challenged by the revenue is that the CIT (A)/NFAC was not justified in treatment of the income from the sale of immovable properties as capital

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the AO's order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 29/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld.CPC, Bengaluru (in short, “the CPC”) passed under section 143(1) of the Act, date of order 31/05/2019. 2. The appeal was filed with a delay of 120 days. The assessee

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,51,811/- on account of current year’s losses. After looking into the entire factual matrix of the case, I find that assessee’s plea is untenable because losses can only be allowed when the return of income is filed within the stipulated time prescribed by the Act. It is noted from the order

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraphs 8, 9, 10 & 11 are reproduced here as under: “8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and found that there is no need to interfere the addition made by AO u/s 144 of the IT Act, total amounting to Rs. 16,90,000/- + 518/- interest. During

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Aggrieved, from the said order of the ld. AO passed rejecting the rectification application an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “6.3 Decision:- The order u/s 143(1), statement of facts

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing purchase without considering real & true fact in right perspective and judicious manner. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the authority below grossly erred in making attempt to normal business transaction as something unusual and out of the ordinary only as un-discerningiy which is against the principal of natural justice. 12. That

SARVODAYA MINING SERVICES,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 09/03/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 17/12/2018. 2. The appeal was filed

MANOJ MAHAWAR HUF,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Tribunal Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 10.06.2024 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction Amounting To Rs.13,54,783/- Claimed U/S 80Jja Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.

disallowance of deduction amounting to Rs.13,54,783/- claimed u/s 80JJA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA 649/Jodh/2024 Α.Υ. 2015-16 2 3. In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of assessee. 4. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. RAVI INFRABUILD PROJECTS LIMITED, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2023-24, whereby relief was granted to the assessee in respect of the disallowance of TDS credit under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised sole ground which read as under: “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case