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)

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or clause (iia) of section 57 or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80CCD or section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss,— (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

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

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

1] That in response to notice u/s 263 the assessee had explained that the reason assigned by the ld PCIT-1, Jodhpur is factually not correct as the assessee had made the construction on the land which was obtained inherited not on the land which was purchased during the year under consideration and as such the factual position as narrated

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

1,72,35,753.18 on which assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 80IB(11A). Your view that assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IB (11A) on warehouse income 12 ITA 171/Johd/2018 Nokha Agro Services Vs PCIT which was taken on rent from third parties and further let out these warehouses. Hence assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IB

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

35 for communication was KUKIVINAY@YAHOO.COM\nNFAC.\n4. That CIT (Appeals) issued 3 hearing notices on 10.02.2021, 05.06.2023\nand 06.07.2023 and all notices were communicated to email\naddress (i.e. KARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM).\n5. That the email address (i.e.\nKARWA.ADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM) was not operated by me &b the email holder\nis not in my touch.\n6. That in the beginning of Month

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

iv) above, aggregating Rs. 20 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT 1,18,11,563/-. Further, the entire income of Rs. 1,18,11,563/- was declared in the return of income under the head "Business and Profession" and against this undisclosed income, the assessee claimed set off of business loss of Rs. 1

SATYA NARAYAN CHOUDHARY ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

iv) above, aggregating Rs. 20 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT 1,18,11,563/-. Further, the entire income of Rs. 1,18,11,563/- was declared in the return of income under the head "Business and Profession" and against this undisclosed income, the assessee claimed set off of business loss of Rs. 1

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

Houses 67,63,42,730.00 5. Contract Work Receipt Gujrat 7,00,89,184.00 6. Agri Development and Other Misc. Contract 9,80,11,520.00 Work Receipt 7. Contract work receipt from B & G 73,97,869.00 Construction 8. Receipt Vat 14% 6,07,583.00 9. Vat 5% 6,01,259.00 10. Vat Free (Exempted) 65,85,891.85 11. Contract