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)

house property. Therefore, rental income received by the assessee from plots was treated as income from other sources and claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act was disallowed

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

house property and even if it is taken as income from other source, the Assessee would be allowed depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the nature of assets from which rent income

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 property at Bengaluru were not at all considered by Ld. CIT(A). Further to this the Judgement in the case of Ramswaroop Saudagar vs ITO [ITA No 329/JP/2017] is contrary to the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sohan Khan (supra). On the similar facts as were in the case of Ramswaroop

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 property at Bengaluru were not at all considered by Ld. CIT(A). Further to this the Judgement in the case of Ramswaroop Saudagar vs ITO [ITA No 329/JP/2017] is contrary to the judgement of Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs Sohan Khan (supra). On the similar facts as were in the case of Ramswaroop

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

disallowance more than what has been made by the Assessing Officer, this order will be treated to have made an enhancement to that extent." 6.1.1. I find that above findings were given in the context of appellant's argument that 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

disallowance of deduction U/s 54F ignoring the fact that the appellate has invested the consideration received by him in construction and has rightly claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction

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) :

disallowed by Ld. AO against property situated at Sardarsamand Lake Resorts and the property situated at Connaught House respectively to cover

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) :

disallowed by Ld. AO against property situated at Sardarsamand Lake Resorts and the property situated at Connaught House respectively to cover

GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowing the claim of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act for the reason that no documentary evidence was furnished. The assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house (Reassessment) Assessment year 2007-08- Where issue as to whether property that was purchased by assessee constituted one flat or two flats for purpose of exemption under section 54F was examined by Assessing Officer in original assessment, Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO reopening of assessment to disallow

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

property situated at Kamla Cristle at Kamla Vihar, Bhilwara but wrongly understood as Kamla enclave, a posh colony at Bhilwara, is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. Hence, the same kindly be deleted in full. 5. The appellant prays your honour indulgence to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds

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

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

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

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

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

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.:

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

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

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

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.:

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed