ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

deduction u/s 24(b) on rental income from plots of land ignoring the fact that there is no constructed house or building on these plots. Facts & Submissions :- 1. The assessee has declared Income From House Property

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

deduction u/s 54 as claimed by assessee is not only genuine but also accordance with provisions of the law. 3] That by letter dated 04/02/2021 the ld PCIT had also directed the assessee to furnish cash book with narration, complete details of the contractor who have constructed the house property

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

Property i) Infrastructural receipt 3,28,975.32 Own warehouse building and goods store on ware house. ii) Rental receipt 37,07,531.68 Goods stored on rented ware houses. Hence your view that A.O. has not verified the expenditure claimed is neither correct nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (4) EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF NON VERIFICATION OF DEDUCTION

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

deduction u/s 54F and bank account for the year under consideration sought vide this notice. During the year under consideration assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of properties being land on different location and claimed exemption u/s 54F against such long term capital gain for purchase of house

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

deduction u/s 54F and bank account for the year under consideration sought vide this notice. During the year under consideration assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of properties being land on different location and claimed exemption u/s 54F against such long term capital gain for purchase of house

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

properties and the deduction in respect of more than house property was not allowable in this case u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore

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

deduction u/s. 54 of the Act on account of investment in house property at Rs. 15,00,000/-, but the AO denied

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 and interest. Further the ld. CIT(A) recorded a categorical finding that the disallowance so worked out (again) does not specify which clause of Rule 8D, was made and there was an ambiguity in the AO’s action, as to how the figures Rs. 6,78,344 X 11,26,578/96,58,600 have been arrived

MANOJ SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLD-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Manoj Singhvi Vs. Dcit, Cc-2 Rajendra Jain, Adv Jodhpur, 106, Akshay Deep Rajasthan. Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur-342001, Rajasthan, Pan/Gir No. : Akips3854Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv Revenue By : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

deduction of Rs.40,149/- under the income from House property as per the copy of the ITR acknowledgement and statement

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

property. Against the surrendered income the assessee set off the business loss of Rs 20.25 lacs. The PCIT directed to examine and verity the claim of set off of loss. The issue relating to set off of loss was duly examined by the assessing officer as evident from the assessment order itself. Your kind attention is drawn to office note

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)

deductions 1,22,65,056 19,32,546 Pg 137 1. Difference amount of Rs. 3,62,82,410 being market value to cost value 2. Net value of assets by granting set off against the 22,55,72,458 Portfolio Para 5.19 negative current (3,62,82,410 + Para 25.2 3 assets

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deductible at source @ 20 per cent of the purchase consideration of Rs. 60,12,000/-.” We notice that the assessee has also relied upon the decision rendered by ITAT Delhi B.Bench in the case of Vinod Soni V/s Income Tax Officer Source (2019) 197 TTJ (Del) 352, wherein it was held as under:- “ TDS-Under S. 194-IA-Joint purchasers

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deductible at source @ 20 per cent of the purchase consideration of Rs. 60,12,000/-.” We notice that the assessee has also relied upon the decision rendered by ITAT Delhi B.Bench in the case of Vinod Soni V/s Income Tax Officer Source (2019) 197 TTJ (Del) 352, wherein it was held as under:- “ TDS-Under S. 194-IA-Joint purchasers

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deductible at source @ 20 per cent of the purchase consideration of Rs. 60,12,000/-.” We notice that the assessee has also relied upon the decision rendered by ITAT Delhi B.Bench in the case of Vinod Soni V/s Income Tax Officer Source (2019) 197 TTJ (Del) 352, wherein it was held as under:- “ TDS-Under S. 194-IA-Joint purchasers

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

deductible at source @ 20 per cent of the purchase consideration of Rs. 60,12,000/-.” We notice that the assessee has also relied upon the decision rendered by ITAT Delhi B.Bench in the case of Vinod Soni V/s Income Tax Officer Source (2019) 197 TTJ (Del) 352, wherein it was held as under:- “ TDS-Under S. 194-IA-Joint purchasers

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)

deductions referred to in clause (i); (b) under the head "Income from house property" with any other head of income

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)

deductions referred to in clause (i); (b) under the head "Income from house property" with any other head of income

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

houses thereon amounted to adventure in the nature of trade and accordingly, the AO brought to tax the profit on sale of properties as income from business and disallowed the deductions/exemptions claimed by the appellant u/s.54F of the Act and 54EC of the Act. Aggrieved by the said additions/disallowances, the appellant is in appeal and has raised 07 grounds which