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

properties is in fact is the business of the assessee. The assessee therefore, rightly disclosed the income under the Head Income from Business. It cannot be treated as 'income from the house

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

income from house property',\n(iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and\n(v) 'income

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.

business income. The Assessee has contended that the hotel building and the temporary structures were specially designed assets to attract tourists and the income from letting out of these properties cannot be considered as income from house

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

business of trading of silver jewelry etc. The appellant had also maintained day to day books of accounts, each & every transaction are duly recorded and supported from the documentary evidences. b] That on 28/07/2010 the appellant had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- in respect of above referred sources. The return filed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

business of trading of silver jewelry etc. The appellant had also maintained day to day books of accounts, each & every transaction are duly recorded and supported from the documentary evidences. b] That on 28/07/2010 the appellant had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- in respect of above referred sources. The return filed

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

Income from house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from

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

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

business asset. Thus, the said income should be taxed as normal rates and not u/s 115BBE of the Act. Necessary directions should be issued in this ard. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the 25 addition of Rs. made merely on presumptions and surmises on the basis of a excel sheet seized during

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

business asset. Thus, the said income should be taxed as normal rates and not u/s 115BBE of the Act. Necessary directions should be issued in this ard. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the 25 addition of Rs. made merely on presumptions and surmises on the basis of a excel sheet seized during

SUNITA HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Α.Μ.:

business asset. Thus, the said income should be taxed as normal rates and not u/s 115BBE of the Act. Necessary directions should be issued in this ard. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the 25 addition of Rs. made merely on presumptions and surmises on the basis of a excel sheet seized during

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

business asset. Thus, the said income should be taxed as normal rates and not u/s 115BBE of the Act. Necessary directions should be issued in this ard. 6. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the 25 addition of Rs. made merely on presumptions and surmises on the basis of a excel sheet seized during

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

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

House Property which too confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) after providing part relief in respect of statutory deduction@ 30% which is bad in law. Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO 6. That the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house. What should be cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD ie. on the facts and circumstances of the case, which is part of finding of fact. No interference is called for." (v) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in the case of CIT Central, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Govadia in ITA No. 82/2010

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

business of Hotel and Resort as proprietor of M/s Ashwariya Restors. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 8,56,670/-. After processing U/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS accordingly notice u/s 143(2) of the act dated 02.09.2014 was issued

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

business....” 11 | P a g e Thus, the activities of 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

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

business or profession, but does not include ‘agriculture land’ in India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which is comprised: within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than