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

143(3)147 of the Act dated 28-12-2017 was fixed and notice u/s. 250 of the Act was received by the appellant. In response, the appellant has filed her reply along with certificate of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar dated 28-02-2019 which is latest one (may be treated as additional evidence). In the said letter dated

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

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the appellant assessee during the course of survey u/s 133A and which was included by him in his return income. The ld. AO has also erred in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE on addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made

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)

143(1) of the Act issued by CPC, has been dismissed for the above said reasons. 3. Arguments have been advanced for both the appeals simultaneously, as common issue is involved therein. Contentions 4. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to Form 10 IE i.e. copy of application to exercise option under clause (i) of sub- section

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)

143(1) of the Act issued by CPC, has been dismissed for the above said reasons. 3. Arguments have been advanced for both the appeals simultaneously, as common issue is involved therein. Contentions 4. Ld. AR for the appellant has referred to Form 10 IE i.e. copy of application to exercise option under clause (i) of sub- section

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 which reads as under: - "Return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed by the assessee on 28.07.2010 which was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, as per information received from the ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur, it was gathered that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 48,80,350/- for construction of residential comples at Nathdwara

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 which reads as under: - "Return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed by the assessee on 28.07.2010 which was processed u/s 143(1). Thereafter, as per information received from the ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur, it was gathered that the assessee has made investment of Rs. 48,80,350/- for construction of residential comples at Nathdwara

SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH ,PUNJAB vs. ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Stay Application No

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

143(3) of the Act. 2 ITA No.252/Jodh/2018 & S.A. No.06/Jodh/2018 Shri Amand Deep Singh vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act have been initiated against the assessee and statutory notice u/s 148 was issued, in response to which the assessee neither comply with the notice nor filed

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

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short AO ] I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 2 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)was justified in deleting the addition

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.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short]. 2. The grievance of the assessee relate to explaining the scope of limited scrutiny and treating the property on sale of 2 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT capita asset as business income in place of capital gain and declined exemption

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

property account. Thus, in this way, there is no fresh fund involved in these two new accounts. As per the ld. AR, during the year the plot at panchsati circle plot no. 53 for Rs. 17446411.00 came into existence. The payment of the aforesaid plot was made in the preceding years to the UIT Bikaner. The assessee has purchase

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

143(2) had been issued on 31/08/2017. The A.O. mentioned the reason for selection of limited scrutiny is as under: - "Following issue(s) have been identified for examination: i. Whether capital gains/ loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income." During the assessment proceedings through notice u/s 142(1) dated 01/08/2018 and19/09/2018

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

2 ITA 25/Jodh/2021 Sunita Agarwal Vs PCIT limited scrutiny and various notices were issued to her. The AO completed the assessment on 19/12/2018 U/s 143(3) of the Act determining totaling total income of the assessee at Rs. 49,54,635/-. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT had issued a show cause notice dated 10/02/2021 which was served upon the assessee

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

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

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for taxing capital gain under the head business income and not giving benefit of exemption U/s 54F of the Act. 2 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143(2) of the Act or 148 of the Act was issued before the date of search in case of Assessee. Further no incriminating material was found for alleged unaccounted asset or income in the hands of the Assessee and the very basis of additions in the hands of the Assessee is mere word file/draft letter found from laptop/pen drive