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

13. Tonk Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. 14. Udaipur Areas up to a distance of 8 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions. What if the agriculture land is not falling within any municipality named in the Notification by Government?? In that case, the agriculture land is not 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

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13. In terms of this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO. 1/JODH/2022 is allowed. 14. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 02/Jodh/2022 wherein the ground no. 1 related to reopening of the case and since we are dealing with the facts of the case. This ground becomes adjudicative in nature

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13. In terms of this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA NO. 1/JODH/2022 is allowed. 14. Now we take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 02/Jodh/2022 wherein the ground no. 1 related to reopening of the case and since we are dealing with the facts of the case. This ground becomes adjudicative in nature

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

Housing Society, Kalwa Devi Road, Mumbai (PB 71) seeking NOC for running training and counseling centre at the flat located therein. Thus, the property at Delhi and Mumbai was acquired in furtherance of its objects of imparting the education. Only because till date the property couldn’t be used for the aforesaid purpose cannot be a ground to cancel

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

housing or other activities, which are integral part of a highway project and for claiming deduction, the assessee has to maintain separate accounts for the said activities and submit a report for each undertaking or enterprise accompanied by profit and loss account and balance sheet of the undertaking or enterprise. Further, as per Rule 18BBB of the Income-tax Rules

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

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

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

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

13. 1,74,46,411 Plot at Panchsati Circle(Plot No. 53) 14. 3,34,425 Tubewell at Khara bypass land 15. Total 2,47,25,282  According to the ld. PCIT, while completing the assessment, the source of acquisition of the mentioned immovable assets has not been examined by the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that during

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

13-12-2011, the appellant's income was assessed at Rs. 41,69,680/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction

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

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

DCIT, CENTRAL CICLE-1, JODHPUR vs. SANJAY SINGHAL, MOUNT ABU

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJKUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT,. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that