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 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

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 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

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

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

Bench: Us.

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 was advanced a total sum of Rs. 16,26,405/- during the FY 2014-15 to 2015-16 which

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)

41,071.36 297 Payment (PB Vol 27.11.2000 27.11.2000 Order 2) Rs. 72,67,262 Total Amount (Approx 7.2 million) 4. The funds initially poured in are also duly reflected in the financial statements of the Vibrant Properties Ltd as a loan payable from the BWR Trust at Pg 180 of PB Vol 1. 17 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur

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

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

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