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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance u/s 54F is warranted. As to the alternative claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 548, the ld. AO stated that no documentary evidences in support have been produced. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that as stated here-in-above the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F but without prejudice, it is stated that

SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

disallowance of deduction U/s 54F ignoring the fact that the appellate has invested the consideration received by him in construction and has rightly claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction

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

1, 6 & 7 are general in nature and hence, not adjudicated. 8. Ground no.2 to 4 are relating to treating the income from capital gains offered as income from business and disallowing the deductions/exemptions claimed u/s.54F/54EC of the Act. one of these grounds is also in respect of disallowance of part of the expenditure on construction for non production

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58,79,649/-. 4.1 The assessment order for the year under consideration was picked up for proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act by the PCIT-1, Jodhpur and a show cause notice was issued as under:- "On perusal of the assessment record

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F by the assessee as there was no addition on the ground as recorded in reasons to believe u/s 148. The Ld. CIT(A) order is against the binding judicial precedents of Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Sh. Ram Singh (306 ITR 343) & CIT v/s Dr. Devendra Gupta (336 ITR 59) 4.That

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued