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

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

house property. In the present case, the assessee is the owner of a commercial property specifically designed to suit a particular business only and no other use of the asset can be made, and the income derived from exploitation of such business apparatus would be the income from Business. 2.3 The nature of business of the assessee also includes

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

27,000/-. 4. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary

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

27,35,000 That out of long term capital gain arise from the transfer of above referred properties, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F against the purchase of residential house at Mumbai. However, the AO while framing assessment treated transaction of sale of property referred above as business transaction and assessed accordingly. 11. From the record, we found that

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

27,35,000 That out of long term capital gain arise from the transfer of above referred properties, the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F against the purchase of residential house at Mumbai. However, the AO while framing assessment treated transaction of sale of property referred above as business transaction and assessed accordingly. 11. From the record, we found that

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

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

27,20,200/- 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

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

property and transactions as recorded on such loose paper were false and incorrect. The Ld AO neither found any material or evidence as a result of search to corroborate the same nor brought on record any adverse material in contrary to statement & affidavits of Shri K.L. Gandhi and other evidence furnished by appellant. The Ld. AR argued that

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

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

Bench: Us.

section 115BBE. 2. It is also noted that this income of the assessee would not have been discovered unless an action u/s 133A of the IT Act, 11 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT 1961 was conducted. Hence, penalty u/s 271(1)© is hereby initiated for concealing true income on the amount of Rs. 43,00,935/- being undisclosed

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

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

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)

section 153A of the Act and also contended that the additions were wrongly made in hands of the Assessee merely on the basis of bank accounts or information in 10 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur relating to accounts, wherein she is just authorized signatory and entire asset/income belong to BWR Trust, which is family trust formed

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

section 54F of the Income Tax Act on technical ground which is bad in law. 5. That on the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in the law the Ld. AO by the impugned order of assessment erred in taxing a sum of Rs. 18,000/- being income under the head House Property which too confirmed

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, (f) ignoring that Id. AO confirmed in remand report that no addition has been made in the hands of the buyer towards alleged on Money, (g) ignoring the registered sale deeds and valuation reports of the sub-registrar (h) without appreciating the affidavit of the assessee and (i) ignoring provisions of section 43CA. Thus, the addition so made should

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, (f) ignoring that Id. AO confirmed in remand report that no addition has been made in the hands of the buyer towards alleged on Money, (g) ignoring the registered sale deeds and valuation reports of the sub-registrar (h) without appreciating the affidavit of the assessee and (i) ignoring provisions of section 43CA. Thus, the addition so made should

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, (f) ignoring that Id. AO confirmed in remand report that no addition has been made in the hands of the buyer towards alleged on Money, (g) ignoring the registered sale deeds and valuation reports of the sub-registrar (h) without appreciating the affidavit of the assessee and (i) ignoring provisions of section 43CA. Thus, the addition so made should

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, (f) ignoring that Id. AO confirmed in remand report that no addition has been made in the hands of the buyer towards alleged on Money, (g) ignoring the registered sale deeds and valuation reports of the sub-registrar (h) without appreciating the affidavit of the assessee and (i) ignoring provisions of section 43CA. Thus, the addition so made should

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

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P 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 03/01/2020 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 Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 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 Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

section 13(1)(c)(ii) r.w.s. 13(2)(a) & 13(2)(g) and thereby cancelled the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements cited by the Ld. A/R and Ld. D/R during the course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix