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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section vide completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 19.02.2016. It has thus resulted the said notice u/s 154 of the Act as a mistake apparent from the record of difference of Rs. 20,54,894/- liable for taxation under the head capital gain. The ld. AO has not considered the law full submission made by the assessee

KIRAN JAIN,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, TDS,, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Housing Board, TDS, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. BFZPM 7523 P ITA Nos. 76/Jodh/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Kiran Jain Vs ITD, Kiran Hospital, 8-R-4 & 5, Ward-1, TDS, Near Love Garden Chouraya, Bhilwara. R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AOPVJ 9883 M (Virtual hearing) Shri Rajendra Jain-Adv. Assessee

JYOTI MALIWAL,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

Housing Board, TDS, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. BFZPM 7523 P ITA Nos. 76/Jodh/2023 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2015-16) Kiran Jain Vs ITD, Kiran Hospital, 8-R-4 & 5, Ward-1, TDS, Near Love Garden Chouraya, Bhilwara. R.C. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara-311001. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AOPVJ 9883 M (Virtual hearing) Shri Rajendra Jain-Adv. Assessee

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

20 SMT SHAHNAJ VS ITO, WARD-2, CHURU land was situated beyond 5 kms. fromChenglepetMunicipality, it could not be considered as non-agricultural land. The head note is reproduced as under:- “Section 2(14), read with section 45, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains – Capital asset (Agricultural land) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee sold certain land situated

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)

house property. Accordingly the disallowance of Rs. I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 15 30,000/- made u/s 24(a) is deleted. In the result, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the finding so recorded in the order of ld. CIT(A), revenue preferred the present appeal challenging the finding

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

section 2(4) of the Act, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments of House of Lords and other decisions of the 10 ITA 158/Jodh/2019 Pushp Raj Bohra Vs DCIT Court of Appeal etc., and then, at page 609 of 35 ITR it was held as under : … 12. Then in final concluding para, after recapitulating the relevant facts

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

section 2(4) of the Act, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered various judgments of House 11 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT of Lords and other decisions of the Court of Appeal etc., and then, at page 609 of 35 ITR it was held as under : … 12. Then in final concluding para, after recapitulating the relevant facts

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

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 1941A is not applicable. We also notice that the assessees have relied upon the decision rendered by Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Oxcia Enterprises (P) Ltd v/s Deputy Commissioner Income Tax Source (2019) 199 TTJ.UO(JD)(UO)25, wherein it was held as under:- " TDS-Under s. 194-IA-Joint ownership of property-In the instant

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)

20 per cent 6. From Rs. 12,50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

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)

20 per cent 6. From Rs. 12,50,001 to Rs. 15,00,000 25 per cent 7. Above Rs. 15,00,000 30 per cent: Provided that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous

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

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

20,200/- which was disclosed by assessee in her return of income. The assessee had sold the property after the transfer took place in her name and received the sales consideration in installment during F.Y 2014-15 & 2015-16 directly in her bank account which has been withdrawn from bank time to time and the same was again re-deposited

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.

20,425 16 Sargit 2014- 6,84,915 16,26,405 9,00,000 Godara 15 2015- 9,41,490 16 From the above, it is clear that during the FY 2013-14 to 2015-16, the assessee made total advance of Rs. 2163310/- to Himraj Jyani which were out of his regular books of account. Similarly, Sargit Godara

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