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

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

house U/s 54 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld DR has contended that the property on sale of land to a construction company were in the nature of business transaction, therefore, liable to tax as business income

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.

property transaction. ii. Disclosure of Rs. 5,66,563/- on account of loan given from unaccounted sources of Rs. 4,75,00/- and interest income thereon Rs. 91,563/- which is also unaccounted. iii. Disclosure of Rs. 48,95,000/- on account of unaccounted income/receipt in cash of Rs. 48,95,000/-. iv. Disclosure of income

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.

property transaction. ii. Disclosure of Rs. 5,66,563/- on account of loan given from unaccounted sources of Rs. 4,75,00/- and interest income thereon Rs. 91,563/- which is also unaccounted. iii. Disclosure of Rs. 48,95,000/- on account of unaccounted income/receipt in cash of Rs. 48,95,000/-. iv. Disclosure of income

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

house U/s 54F of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld DR has contended that the property on sale of land to a construction company were in the nature of business transaction, therefore, liable to tax as business income

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

house property. Against the surrendered income the assessee set off the business loss of Rs 20.25 lacs. The PCIT directed

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

SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST ,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsrsl Charitable Trust, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Srsl House, Pulla Bhuwana Jaipur. Road, National Highway No. 8, Udaipur. Pan No. Aaats 3819 F Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 02/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Activities Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Genuinely Charitable & Also Not Carried Out In Accordance With The Objects Of The Trust. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Making Various Incorrect & Irrelevant Observations Particularly Holding That Rental Income Received From Letting Out The Properties Stated To Be Acquired For The Purpose Of Providing Educational Services To The Students Is An Activity Of Commercial In Nature Hit

Housing Society, Kalwa Devi Road, Mumbai (PB 71) seeking NOC for running training and counseling centre at the flat located therein. Thus, the property at Delhi and Mumbai was acquired in furtherance of its objects of imparting the education. Only because till date the property couldn’t be used for the aforesaid purpose cannot be a ground to cancel

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

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