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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

income from the house property’.” 6 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 4. While considering the issue related to the expenses claimed by the assssee in P&L Account pertaining to indirect expenses, amount to Rs.11,54,204.12, show cause notice was issued by the Ld.PCIT and the relevant paragraph 6 of the impugned notice is reproduced as below

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

house property. In the present case, the assessee is the owner of a commercial property specifically designed to suit a particular business only and no other use of the asset can be made, and the income derived from exploitation of such business apparatus would be the income from Business. 2.3 The nature of business of the assessee also includes

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

addition of Rs. 7. Against the assessment order framed appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) raising the following grounds for assessing the capital gain as business income and quantum of income: "2, That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. AO erred in treating the capita/gain earned on sale of different properties as income from

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

house on rent for\nfive years to Shri Rajendra Karnani as per agreement. After competition of period of\nfive year he vacates the premises. During the year the appellant had utilized for self-\npurpose and not given on rent to anyone. The rental income of Rs 78,000/- as per\nagreement was disclosed by appellant while filing

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

house property is a separate income and has nothing to do with the income from the firm, the assessing authority has misinterpreted the provision of sec. 14A and therefore entire addition

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

house property or under the head income from business. Under\nno circumstances, such income can be treated as undisclosed income and\nassessed under the head income from other sources by invoking provisions of\nsection 68 read with section 115 BBE.\n12.\nIn view of that matter, we hold that the impugned order is infirm and\nperverse to the facts

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

House Property, some Interest income from Bank accounts as well as some income from certain investments and other sources. The said income and sources have been declared by me in returns of income filed with Income Tax department. I am an old lady with multiple medical problems including heart condition, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, thyroid condition and hyperlipidemia. My husband

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

additional income as\nbusiness income in his return of income and paid due taxes thereon.\n18. In our view, what is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not\njust the factum of survey action but besides that, what is the explanation so offered\nby the Assessee explaining the nature and source of income so found during the\ncourse

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

addition made by the AO at Rs.7214057/- treating the same as capital assets may kindly be directed to be deleted. Since it is established that the said lands were a rural agricultural land and do not fall under the definition of capital asset or urban land as given in Income tax Act or Wealth tax Act, therefore, provisions

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

property discovered in course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in course of original assessment—Assessment in respect of each of six assessment years was separate and distinct assessment—U/s.153A , assessment had to be made in relation to search or 7 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during search

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from other sources 29, 52,113/- Total 53,54,139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. MANOHAR LAL ANJANA, NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Manohar Lal Anjana Central Circle-1 Anjana Compound, Petch Udaipur Area, Opportunity. Dak Bunglow, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwpa 2124 L

house property, share of profit from firm, dividend etc. He is also engaged in the business of mining laterite and red ochre. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.96,42,260/-. The AO disallowed interest expenses to the tune of Rs.1,25,70,319/- and also made addition

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Income Tax Department which has not been considered by the AO. It was submitted that the addition was made without obtaining the comments of the DVO on the issues raised by the appellant and that the DVO has taken CPWD rates for valuing hospital building and also not allowed the self-supervision deduction. (iii) I have considered the facts

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

DINKAR MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

properties at Rs. 1.95 Cr. Further, there has been unexplained investment of Rs. 12 Lacs. Total undisclosed investment comes Rs. 2.07 Cr. As has been mentioned above, the undisclosed income of Rs. 1.95 Cr was offered by the assessee during the course of search proceedings as per statement u/s. 132(4). Subsequently, during the course of post search proceedings also

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

housing development and town planning, which is the core activity of the appellant in this case also, has been held to be charitable activities within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act fully considering the scope of the proviso below S. 2(15). The law as understood and declared thus by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall relate

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Income Tax Act and make addition of Rs. 20,54,894/- vide order dated 13.06.2018. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue