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

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 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

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

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

section 142(1) asking for the details. Further, the Ld. PCIT issued the notice dated 09/01/2024 3 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited and asked for the details from assessee about the claim of depreciation on the leasehold property amount to Rs.59,98,438/-. The relevant paragraph of the notice is extracted below:- “1. On perusal of the case

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

property to the extent of 50 per cent of investment being the share of the assessee which has been jointly purchased in his and wife's name and thus it cannot be held that the present case is based on "no enquiry" or "lack of enquiry". Even otherwise, there are limitations on the powers of the Principal

GURPREET SINGH SONI,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

50,000/- under section 24(b) of the Act for the reason that no documentary evidence was furnished. The assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing that

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

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)

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 year and other provisions of this

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)

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 year and other provisions of this

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 50C(2). The Ld. DVO has taken (+)50% as factor of adjustment on account of Location/Situation addition due to property situated on 100 mtr wide Ring Road With 44’0” wide front, he has not even considered the concept of commercial potential and ascertained the FMV based on the land used reported by him. 12 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 50C(2). The Ld. DVO has taken (+)50% as factor of adjustment on account of Location/Situation addition due to property situated on 100 mtr wide Ring Road With 44’0” wide front, he has not even considered the concept of commercial potential and ascertained the FMV based on the land used reported by him. 12 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash

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

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

Bench: Us.

50,05,320/-. Subsequent, a show-cause was issued by the ld PCIT u/s 263 and the impugned order was passed holding the 2 Shri Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Pr. CIT assessment order as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and setting aside the same to consider the issues raised in the impugned order afresh

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

50,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee firm. Hence your view that A.O. has not verified and investigate the claim of Godown rent paid against ware house receipts eligible for deduction u/s 80IB (11A) is not correct and not tenable in eye of law. ii) We beg to draw your kind attention that assessee has submitted

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