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

house property and even if it is taken as income from other source, the Assessee would be allowed depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the nature of assets from which rent income

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

property on the land owned by his wife. vi. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the decision dated 1-4-2008 in case of CIT vs. Gurnam Singh held that purchase of another agricultural land in joint names of the assessee and his son is entitled for exemption u/s 54B. In the appellant’s case also the appellant’s mother

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 69A cannot be invoked. The reasoning given by the AO and Ld. CIT (A) is vague and based on surmise as to what a prudent person should have done. Once assessee has explained that being of senior citizen they have maintained such liquidity of cash out of their own disclosed income with them for certain contingencies, then without

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 and even if it is taken as income from other source, the Assessee would be allowed depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 10 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited addressed, leaving no grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we respectfully rely on the judgments in PCIT

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 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 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 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

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

Section 14A of the Act and the disallowance of addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.7,91,675/- may be deleted. 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below, 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the Grounds

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

house property or under the head\nincome from business. Under no circumstances can such income be treated as\nundisclosed income and assessed under the head income from other sources by\ninvoking provisions of section 68 read with section 1 15 BBE. He requested that\nthe same may kindly be deleted.\n8.\n9.\nThe Addl CIT (DR) supported the impugned order

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

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

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

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

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