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

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

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

house for which rent is received which is not a charitable activity. Otherwise also, M/s Avanti Learning Centre Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in preparing the students for competitive exams which does not fall under the ambit of education. In view of above, the Ld. CIT(E) held that there is violation of section 12AA(3) or section 12AA

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P 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 03/01/2020 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 Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 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 Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

section 11(5) for the reason that funds of the assessee has been diverted to the trustees and that the property of the trustees has been taken by paying higher rent/ security deposit whereas the property of trust has been let out at lower rent. Though for these reasons it cannot be said that the activities of the trust

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

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, income from business and profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. 3.2 After considering the facts of the case and replies submitted by the assessee ld. AO noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs 80,00,000/- in the bank account between 9.11.2016 to 30.11.2016. While the assessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain

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

11. Sikar Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. 12. Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from Sriganganagar the municipal limits in all directions. 13. Tonk Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. 14. Udaipur Areas up to a distance

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

section 2(4) of the Act, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments of House 11 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT of Lords and other decisions of the Court of Appeal etc., and then, at page 609 of 35 ITR it was held as under : … 12. Then in final concluding para, after recapitulating the relevant facts

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

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation

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. In the present case, the assessee is the owner of a commercial property specifically designed to suit a particular business only and no other use of the asset can be made, and the income derived from exploitation of such business apparatus would be the income from Business. 2.3 The nature of business of the assessee also includes

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. The AO discussed the issued in Para 10 to 17 at page 36 to 40. Detailed explanation on the finding so recorded was submitted before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) despite holding that assets under consideration were purchased as capital asset concluded that sale of such assets was an ‘adventure in the nature of trade

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

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 on the issue which was not subject matter of show cause notice U/s 263 of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

Section 14A of the Act and the disallowance of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.7,91,675/- may be deleted. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below, 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the Grounds

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)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

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)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

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 and against the surrendered income, the assessee had set off the business loss of Rs. 200.25 lacs, therefore, PCIT had directed to examine and verify the claim of set off of loss by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 8. In this regard, after considering the documents placed on record and hearing the parties

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

11,97.500/- 2 Income from 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

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

11. But this does not mean that loss computed under any of the five heads\nmentioned in section 14 - (i) 'salary', (ii) 'income from house property