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

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

section 250(6) of the Act, it is the duty of the Commissioner (Appeals) to state a point in dispute, record the reasons and pass a speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 49% and Canara Bank v. V. K. Awasthy

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

5. That the action taken by the Assessing Authority as well as sustained by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, is illegal and against the law. 6. That the assessee was prevented reasonable cause from furnishing the Income Tax return, therefore the expartee assessment is illegal and against

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the Act, dated 29.07.2021 along- with a questionnaire as below, "1. You have claimed that you have paid interest of Rs 2,07,881/- Naval Kishore Daga vs. DCIT Please explain how the loan raised were utilised to earn the interest income which you have earned and therefore why deduction of such interest paid should be allowed

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961,\nfor the assessment year 2014-15.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) erred in\nconfirming the AO's order dated 28.12.2017 passed for the AY 2014-15 u/s\n153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without

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

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

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal 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 Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal 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 Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal 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 Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2017-18, date of order 28/02/2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Udaipur (in short, ‘Ld.AO’), passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, for A.Ys

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

ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradaravali Trading Company, Vs Ito, 154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

5. ADDITION ON A/C OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF Rs. 43,95,509/- Rs. 43,955/- a. That Authorities below erred in law and in facts while making addition for hypothetical excess stock found in different packing during the course of survey proceeding for Rs. 39,97,250/- as well as on account of shortage of stock found in different packing

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) is justified in allowing the claim of deduction of Rs. 1,68,71,111/- u/s 80IC of the I.T. Act ignoring the report of the Tehsildar that Khasa