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

short]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for taxing capital gain under the head business income and not giving benefit of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 2 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold

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

short]. 2. The grievance of the assessee relate to explaining the scope of limited scrutiny and treating the property on sale of 2 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT capita asset as business income in place of capital gain and declined exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 3. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. MARUDHAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.177/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.140/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-Circle-1 M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Jodhpur. Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. C.O. No.02/Jodh/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.177/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. C.O. No.14/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.140/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur. Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.277E/2016-17. 1.2 The grounds raised by the revenue read as under:- 1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is right in law in holding that surplus on sale of plot of Rs.7,03,86,970/- is assessable as capital gain, ignoring the various patent facts

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown company worth Rs. 5/- had jumped to Rs. 485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no financial

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

short, the Act) wherein following grounds have been raised: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order U/s 263 passed by Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur is bad in law and bad in facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction

HARISH KUMAR BAHETI,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.56/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Harish Kumar Baheti Acit –Circle Bhilwara बनाम C/O M/S. R.K. Bhandari & Associates (Ca) Rajasthan City Tower, Gandhi Bazar / Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlpb-1795-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], 2 Shri Harish Kumar Baheti Assessment Year: 2014-15 Appeal No.408/2016-17 dated 09/11/2017 on following effective grounds:- 1. The A.O, was not justified in making additions made on account of Undisclosed Credits U/s 69A of Rs. 7,10,000/- which in fact has been deposited into SB A/c out of Savings of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

disallowance of Rs. 5,16,066/- made u/s 40A(3) is hereby cancelled. (iii) Regarding the addition of Rs. 28,950/- made under the head "long term capital gain", the appellant, relying on the decision of ITAT "E" Bench Mumbai in the case of ACIT, 14(1), Mumbai vs. M/s Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA No. 6454/Mum/2011

KISHAN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainkishan Mehta, Vs A.C.I.T., D-19-20, Shiv Park Circle-1, Colony, Durga Nursery Udaipur. Road, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipm 6039 R

short]. Following grounds have been taken by the assessee. “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur has erred in disallowing improvement expenses of Rs. 2,50,000/- incurred in financial year 2003-04 though paid long back is illegal and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- and TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under

RAJESH VISHNOI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmarajesh Vishnoi Vs The Acit, D-3, Saraswati Nagar, Circle-1, Basni 1St Phase, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaipv0192Q

short term capital gain and interest. After hearing the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 04.02.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 29,22,865/- making various additions/disallowances. The Assessing Officer noticed that the GP rate of 1.06% declared in the year under consideration in respect of handicraft business was lower

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

disallowance of Rs.2,50,000/- would be reasonable to cover up hidden profit in these purchases. The AO is directed to make addition of Rs.2,50,000/- instead of Rs.21,29,732/-. The appellant partly succeeds on this ground.” 15. Now the assessee has filed the Cross objection. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Even though the Ld D.R submitted that the Ld PCIT has taken one more issue, yet we confine ourselves to the above said three issues only, since the argument was advanced on the above said three issues only. 3. The first issue relates to the deduction allowed u/s 80IA

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

capital of the assessee and the AO 6 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. was not able to pin pointedly come to a definite conclusion which proves the nexus between interest bearing loans vis-à-vis interest free loan/advances, disallowance has been rightly deleted. Further, when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons to whom

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance of interest of Rs. 36,111.00 U/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS. Though there is no separate addition was made on this account.” The 1st ground raised by the assessee in his appeal is against applying 8. NP rate of 10.16% subject to depreciation as against the 12.50% subject to depreciation and interest applied

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

disallowance of interest of Rs. 36,111.00 U/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non deduction of TDS. Though there is no separate addition was made on this account.” The 1st ground raised by the assessee in his appeal is against applying 8. NP rate of 10.16% subject to depreciation as against the 12.50% subject to depreciation and interest applied

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

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

term used in the statement i.e. “Unbilled\nSales”. The term is being used after considering the term “Unbilled revenue” guided in\nthe process of determination of income/revenue which is required to be recognized under\nthe percentage of completion method (POC) applicable for finalization of accounts as\nwell as recognition of revenue of Real Estate Business conducted by the assessee