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

251(2) same cannot be done without providing opportunity to the assessee. considering all above factors, it is requested to please issue the requisite order to delete the direction to the assessing officer for examination of exemption u/s 54F/54EC. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submission, and citation including coordination Bench decision. Admittedly

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

2. Copy of reply to AO dated 05.03.2020 for AY 2019-20 36-42 3. Copies of affidavits of family members 43-45 4. Copy of Certificate from Bank along with Locker Operation Register 46-51 5. Copy of Will 52-54 6. Copy of affidavit of relative 55-56 7. Copy of Remand report and comments on the remand

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

251. Where in payment made for purchase in cash of stock in trade doesn't amount to expenditure under Compelling/Exceptional circumstance to execute deal and same is allowed. (Copy Enclosed) 4. Disallowances U/s 40A(3) was not justified where unavoidable circumstances in assessee's case were clearly covered by Rule 6 DD(j) read with CBDT circular no. 220 dated

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

251/- 2. Operating expenditure- Rs.2,70,14,05,592/- Gross profit )Rs.1,02,13,58,689/- 38 Varaha Infra Ltd. Gross profit % (-)37.11% This year there is gross loss @ 37.11% as against gross profit @ 29.29% for AY 2016-17. Since books of account are defective and, therefore, have been rejected, gross profit rate for AY 2016-17 is applied

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned assessment order u/s. 144 is hereby set aside and referred back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to furnish necessary submissions and evidences in support of his appeal and such other information required by the Assessing officer, strictly within the time given

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

section 40A(3) of the Act. For this, we place reliance in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Sing vs ITO (1991) 97CTR 251 (SC) and Smt. Harshila Chordia vs ITO (2007) 298 ITR 349 (Raj). ITA 120/Jodh/2019 Shri Gautam Sharma vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur 2.12 In view of the above discussions and considering the totality of facts

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

2. "Regarding Donation-I don't of any document slip so request you to cancel the same and offer my apology and promise to not put any kind of non documentary submission in future" From above mentioned reply, assessee himself accepted the deduction claimed u/s 80G was not genuine and wrong in accordance with the act. Therefore, deduction claimed