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

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

section 54F of the Income Tax Act on technical ground which is bad in law. 5. That on the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in the law the Ld. AO by the impugned order of assessment erred in taxing a sum of Rs. 18,000/- being income under the head House Property which too confirmed

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

143/-on furniture/fittings/kitchen equipment etc. of Hotel at Osiyan. This Hotel building at Osiyan is not a business asset used for the purpose of business but it is shown under the head "investment in property in the note 5 to balance sheet. Further there are no business receipts from this hotel which could prove that it was used

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the order dated. 03/10/2018 under section 154 of the Act and assessed the income at Rs. 16,07,985/- one of the addition was of Rs. 1,50,000/- by disallowing the claim of the assessee amounting

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

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

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

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

143(3) of the Act dated 19/12/2018 passed by the A.O. is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and directed the A.O. to pass the speaking assessment order afresh after making proper enquiries and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 3. Now the assessee

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)

House anley PB) ST ST helier jersey JE4 8RD Channel Islands jersey isla 6. The AO has also mentioned these entries in assessment order at page no 28-29 – para 5.19, 5.20. However, the Ld. AO has only disbelieved the entire explanation backed by documentary evidence by merely relying upon reference by FT & TR division. 7. The funds transferred through