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

19, date of order 18/03/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18. The impugned order emanated from the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi, (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act, date of order 09/04/2021. 2 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment

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)

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 offered

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

19. It has, inter alia, been specified that area up to 2 kms. from the municipal limits in all directions has to be regarded other than agricultural land. Once the Statutory guidance of taking into account the extent and scope of urbanization of the area hasto be reckoned while issuing any suchnotification, then it would be incongruous to the argument

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

section 54F is allowed in respect of investment made prior to date of filing of return. In the light of the above actual expenditure for claiming exemption u/s 54F was Rs. 3460894/- (6106014- 1120620-1524500) only and therefore exemption u/s 54F was to be allowed for Rs. 3273202/- (3460894 x 25724885 / 27200000) only. However, while completing assessment full exemption

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

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

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

19,000/- found at the\npremises and the amount of Rs. 14,90,000/- shown in the books of account as cash\nin hand. The assessee offered, for surrender, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs on account\nof stock not entered in the books of account, relating to debtors. The assessee\nfurther offered an amount of Rs.21 lacs representing

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)

House Property, some Interest income from Bank accounts as well as some income from certain investments and other sources. The said income and sources have been declared by me in returns of income filed with Income Tax department. I am an old lady with multiple medical problems including heart condition, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, thyroid condition and hyperlipidemia. My husband

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

House Property which too confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) after providing part relief in respect of statutory deduction@ 30% which is bad in law. Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani vs. ITO 6. That the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, modify or substitute any of the grounds of appeal on or before the time of hearing

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

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

19 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT to Rs.1,95,34,000 from various persons, but creditworthiness of none of them was verified by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 131 or Section 133(6) of the Act. However, in this regard, the ld. AR submitted that during the course of proceedings all the duly signed account statement

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

property. Therefore, the real colour/ true character of the transactions as discussed hereinabove which are supported form legal and valid documentary evidences which were overlooked by the AO, in arbitrary manner are illegal and unsustainable in eye of law. 8. It was submitted that admittedly the source of cash deposits in bank account had been explained with legal and valid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) has observed as under: Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Business income - Chargeable as - Assessment years

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