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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54 to extent of value of two residential house properties and not just one Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour

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)

17,19,605/- on account of sale of immovable properties. Ld. AO considering the fact that the assessee engaged in the business of real estate developer, therefore, vide notice dated 11.10.209, the assessee was asked to explain why the income from sale of properties should not be assessed as business income instead of long term capital gain & short term capital

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

17. The fact that the land was failing outside the municipal limit was never disputed by both the Members and in fact a specific ground was raised before the Tribunal that the revenue received on sale of land is exempt under section 2(1A) of the Act. The learned counsel filed a detailed written submission wherein he pointed out that

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)

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 (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause

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)

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 (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause

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

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

house property. The AO discussed the issued in Para 10 to 17 at page 36 to 40. Detailed explanation on the finding so recorded by the AO 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

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

17 Certificate of Nagar Palika, Sumerpur P.B. Page 18 in respect of construction of house Submission before PCIT P.B. 34 to 36, 39" i. From the above, it is crystal clear, that the ld AO had raised the queries in respect of allowiblity of deduction u/s 54F which were compiled by the assessee and the ld AO on meticulous appreciation

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

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 we found

PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

house property for an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-. A payment of Rs.36,00,000/-was made on 27.11.2015 and the remaining payment was made on 30.04.2016. The Assessing Officer failed to verify the said information as to whether the registered deed was executed or not. The AO is directed to examine this issue after verifying necessary details and documents

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

Property i) Infrastructural receipt 3,28,975.32 Own warehouse building and goods store on ware house. ii) Rental receipt 37,07,531.68 Goods stored on rented ware houses. Hence your view that A.O. has not verified the expenditure claimed is neither correct nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (4) EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF NON VERIFICATION OF DEDUCTION

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)

17 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur In the BWR Trust Financials also for the year end 31.12.2002, the loan advanced to the Vibrant Properties Ltd is shown duly as loans receivable at Pg 6 of PB Vol 4. Thus, the source of funds initially received in Vibrant properties Limited is thus established and proved and clearly verifiable from the documentary evidences

SUNITA HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Α.Μ.:

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

PRADEEP HEDA,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,UDAIPUR-2, UDAIPUR

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

House No. 14 was sold on 07/04/2017 (AO Page 29) (a) ignoring that the said property was actually sold on 14/12/2016 (AO Page 5) and even the addition for alleged receipt of its on-money was made in AY 2017-18 (b) ignoring that the construction expenses were claimed in the return filed

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

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