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

property since last 20 years, the same held as investment therefore, eligible to claim benefit of long term capital gains and utilization of capital gains for purchase of house

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

long-term capital gain on the basis of the report of the Inspector and he did not believe the report of the Tehsildar. We agree with the opinion of the learned CIT(Appeals) that he should have requested the higher authorities of the State Government if he did not believe his report to be correct or he could have summoned

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house properties Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act cannot be allowed.” 19. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. Before us it is not disputed that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown on long term capital gain

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house properties Therefore, the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act cannot be allowed.” 19. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record. Before us it is not disputed that the assessee sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 45,00,000/- and shown on long term capital gain

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

term capital gain for the relevant year." 14 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT However, after analyzing the order of assessment, the ld. PCIT directed that the sale of land be booked under the head Business and Profession rather than STCG. In our view, such type of subjectivity which propagates one line of action and negates another is nothing

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

long term, accordingly, gain arising from sale was eligible for deduction U/s 54F of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the A.O. to treat the property on sale of land as capital gain and given the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54 of the Act. We direct accordingly. 17. The next grievance of the assessed relates to allowing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain (LTCG) on sale of a residential property which was set-off towards purchase of two residential properties - Accordingly, assessee sought exemption under section 54 - Assessing Officer in view of amended provision of section 54 restricted assessee's claim to purchase value of only one property having higher value Whether since amendment to provision of section

HARISH KUMAR BAHETI,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.56/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Harish Kumar Baheti Acit –Circle Bhilwara बनाम C/O M/S. R.K. Bhandari & Associates (Ca) Rajasthan City Tower, Gandhi Bazar / Vs. Bhilwara, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Adlpb-1795-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Long- Term Capital Gain of Rs.23.49 Lacs in the hands of the assessee. 3.6 Another addition was on account of cash deposit of Rs.13.50 Lacs in one of the saving account maintained by the assessee with Axis Bank, Bhilwara. The assessee submitted that the deposits were sourced out of salary income. Vide another submission dated 19/09/2016, the assessee submitted that

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