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

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

house on rent for five years to Shri Rajendra Karnani as per agreement. After competition of period of five year he vacates the premises. During the year the appellant had utilized for self- purpose and not given on rent to anyone. The rental income of Rs 78,000/- as per agreement 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

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

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

addition has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) arbitrarily and contrary to its own findings. 23. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee in his statement U/s 132(4), recorded during search, the assessee admitted undisclosed income aggregating Rs. 2,18,11,563/- based

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

addition has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) arbitrarily and contrary to its own findings. 23. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that the assessee in his statement U/s 132(4), recorded during search, the assessee admitted undisclosed income aggregating Rs. 2,18,11,563/- based

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

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

additional income of Rs 60 Lac although the assessee had shown business income of Rs 6181145 in its computation. But the assessee claimed set off of loss pertaining to preceding year of Rs 2025334/- thus net business income shown by the assessee in its computation of income was Rs 4155811. Thus business loss claimed is allowed to the assessee." Amendment

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Us.

Income-tax Act 1961 in respect of unrecorded transactions of Rs.5 04 720/- and Rs 10 38 165/- in AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. (ii)/ Issue/point 2:- During the survey proceedings, an agreement for purchase of house property was found. As per this document, the assessee had purchased a house property for an amount of Rs.60

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SHRI GAJ SINGH, JODHPUR

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.85/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit–Circle-1 Shri Gaj Singh बनाम/ Jodhpur Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Rajasthan. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 4. C.O. No.08/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.85/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. C.O. No.09/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 6. C.O. No.13/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Gaj Singh Acit–Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

property situated at Connaught House respectively to cover up the possible leakages. Accordingly, the ground was partly allowed. This estimation was in line with estimations made in appellate order for AY 2012-13 which were confirmed by Tribunal vide common order ITA Nos.148 to 150/Jodh/2016 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 order dated 27/06/2017. We concur with

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SHRI GAJ SINGH, JODHPUR

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.85/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit–Circle-1 Shri Gaj Singh बनाम/ Jodhpur Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Rajasthan. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 4. C.O. No.08/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.85/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 5. C.O. No.09/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.86/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 6. C.O. No.13/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.141/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Gaj Singh Acit–Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afmps-5233-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

property situated at Connaught House respectively to cover up the possible leakages. Accordingly, the ground was partly allowed. This estimation was in line with estimations made in appellate order for AY 2012-13 which were confirmed by Tribunal vide common order ITA Nos.148 to 150/Jodh/2016 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 order dated 27/06/2017. We concur with

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

addition of Rs. 68,95,000/- as unexplained cash deposits in bank account u/s 69A of the Act. 3. It was submitted that the assessee only source of income is rental income which was received through banking channel after deduction of TDS and duly disclosed in the return of income. However due to sudden death of husband of the assessee

SMT. REKHA SINGH,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4,, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Respondent) Pan: Jdhr06554C

addition of Rs. 75,000/- on account of deemed rental income. 9. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has purchased a house at Kamla Enclase, Bhilwara on 29.01.2014 but no rental income from the said house property

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