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

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

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

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house. What should be cost of construction, the Tribunal has applied the rate of PWD ie. on the facts and circumstances of the case, which is part of finding of fact. No interference is called for." (v) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur in the case of CIT Central, Jaipur vs. Ashok Kumar Govadia in ITA No. 82/2010

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

4,21,933/-. The ld.\nAO has disallowed this claim for want of verification. A perusal\nof the record would indicate that inspite of survey carried out at\nthe premises of the assessee, the ld. AO was unable to pin-point\nas to why direct and indirect expenses are not required for\nearning a huge income of more than Rs.72

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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

property which represent earning of unaccounted income\nby the assessee. As such, the Id. CIT(A) to that extent is justified in\nholding that estimation of sales on the basis of loose slips represented\npayment of wages is not possible.\"\n3. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that once the explanation of the\nassessee was found to be unacceptable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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