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)

5) or clause (13A) or prescribed under clause (14) (other than those as may be prescribed for this purpose) or clause (17) or clause (32), of section 10 or section 10AA or section 16 or clause (b) of section 24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub-section

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the ld. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has not transferred a residential house but a long term capital

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the ld. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has not transferred a residential house but a long term capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property was not allowable in this case u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the case laws cited by the appellant are Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO not applicable on this ground and further, as discussed in above paras the applicability of section 54F in case of purchase different houses is not a debatable issue, therefore the case laws cited

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee along with his three brothers purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.51,00,000/-. According to the AO, the assessee was required to deduct TDS @ 1% u/s. 1941A in respect of this transfer which, they have failed to deduct. It was noticed that these assessees have

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

section 142(1) asking for the details. Further, the Ld. PCIT issued the notice dated 09/01/2024 3 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited and asked for the details from assessee about the claim of depreciation on the leasehold property amount to Rs.59,98,438/-. The relevant paragraph of the notice is extracted below:- “1. On perusal of the case

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. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

1 of 1956), or is a University established by law, or is any other educational institution recognised by the Government or by a University established by law, or affiliated to any University established by law, or is an institution financed wholly or in part by the Government or a local authority; (vi) in relation to donations made after the 31st

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

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 and declared thus by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall relate

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.

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. 10 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited addressed, leaving no grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we respectfully rely on the judgments in PCIT

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

house property 1,95,450/- 3 Profits and gains of business or profession 13,832/- 4 Income from other sources 29, 52,113/- Total 53,54,139/- 7.8 However, the assessee has not disclosed the details of share of profit received from the partnership firm, which is otherwise exempt from tax in the hands of the assessee

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Housing Board, TDS, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. BFZPM 7523 P ITA Nos. 76/Jodh/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Kiran Jain Vs ITD, Kiran Hospital, 8-R-4 & 5, Ward-1, TDS, Near Love Garden Chouraya, Bhilwara. R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AOPVJ 9883 M (Virtual hearing) Shri Rajendra Jain-Adv. Assessee

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Housing Board, TDS, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. BFZPM 7523 P ITA Nos. 76/Jodh/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Kiran Jain Vs ITD, Kiran Hospital, 8-R-4 & 5, Ward-1, TDS, Near Love Garden Chouraya, Bhilwara. R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AOPVJ 9883 M (Virtual hearing) Shri Rajendra Jain-Adv. Assessee

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 and\nassessed under the head income from other sources by invoking provisions of\nsection 68 read with section 115 BBE.\n12.\nIn view of that matter, we hold that the impugned order is infirm and\nperverse to the facts

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 income of Rs. 3,06,701/- from the gross income Working of disallowance also does not specify under which clause of Rule 8D the calculation is made. There is ambiguity in the AO's action as to how the figures 678344X1126578/9658600 have been arrived at. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, I direct