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

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)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

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)

house property" with any other head of income; (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

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

SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST ,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsrsl Charitable Trust, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Srsl House, Pulla Bhuwana Jaipur. Road, National Highway No. 8, Udaipur. Pan No. Aaats 3819 F Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 02/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Activities Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Genuinely Charitable & Also Not Carried Out In Accordance With The Objects Of The Trust. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Making Various Incorrect & Irrelevant Observations Particularly Holding That Rental Income Received From Letting Out The Properties Stated To Be Acquired For The Purpose Of Providing Educational Services To The Students Is An Activity Of Commercial In Nature Hit

properties stated to be acquired for the purpose of providing educational services to the students is an activity of commercial in nature hit 2 ITA 58/Jodh/2020 SRSL Charitable Trust Vs CIT(E) by proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act and not as per the object of the assessee.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video

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

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 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat High

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

13. From the order of the A.O., we observe that to determine the 7 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT intention at the time of purchase of property AO drawn inference only from three facts that (1) assessee has carried on construction activity before sale of property, (2) assessee is director in the company in Fateh Agro Builders

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

13. 1,74,46,411 Plot at Panchsati Circle(Plot No. 53) 14. 3,34,425 Tubewell at Khara bypass land 15. Total 2,47,25,282  According to the ld. PCIT, while completing the assessment, the source of acquisition of the mentioned immovable assets has not been examined by the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that during

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

13. The intention of assessee at the time of purchase of property and Time period of holding of property not at all considered by the AO in determination of nature of transaction under consideration. Further to this AO observed that there was no urgency for the sale of the property under consideration. This fact again contrary to the facts

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

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

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

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation

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

2 Income from 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

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

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

13-12-2011, the appellant's income was assessed at Rs. 41,69,680/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction