AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallowed. On 30-4-2009, the Commissioner issued the impugned notice under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order passed on 27-12-2007 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee challenged said notice contending that though, in form, the Commissioner had sought to revise the order dated 27-12-2007 which

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

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

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets under section 36(1)(viia) following the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal against the order u/s 14 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. 263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19.05.2017 has observed

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

Disallowance of claim u/s 80P(2)(d) 1. 2013-14 68/Jodh/2022 Rs.3,32,90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before

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

disallowance made by the AO, therefore, the AO is directed to allow full expenditure so incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,90,029/-. We direct accordingly." 8.2In view of the fact that the issue in question has already been decided by ITAT in the case of appellant's own case in AY 2015-16, the same being binding

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, legal position and judicial precedents cited supra, it is held that the addition of Rs. 25,91,01,791%- could not have been made either u/s. 68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

disallowed this claim for want of verification. A perusal\nof the record would indicate that inspite of survey carried out at\nthe premises of the assessee, the ld. AO was unable to pin-point\nas to why direct and indirect expenses are not required for\nearning a huge income of more than Rs.72 lacs which has been\noffered