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

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 16A of that

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

6. The Ld.DR argued and fully stands with the order of the Ld.PCIT. The relevant paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5, on pages 26 to 27, are relied upon, which are extracted below:- “5.3. On the issue of rent income from the property, the Assessee has contended that it has given on a short term lease its property being a fully equipped

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)

6 1. The nature of business in the column no 10(a) of the form no. 3CDis mentioned as 'builder' and sub-sector is mentioned as 'property developers'. Once assessee is into business of 'property developers', it is not open to him to treat certain property sales as capital transactions and others as business transaction. 2. Assessee did not furnish

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

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

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

Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction on the issue which was not subject matter of show cause notice U/s 263 of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

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

6. I have considered the facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant's submissions. The only issue to be decided in the instant case is whether the appellant was liable for deducting TDS as per section 194-IA of the Act on payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- being purchase price of the property

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

property account. Thus, in this way, there is no fresh fund involved in these two new accounts. As per the ld. AR, during the year the plot at panchsati circle plot no. 53 for Rs. 17446411.00 came into existence. The payment of the aforesaid plot was made in the preceding years to the UIT Bikaner. The assessee has purchase

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

house property income of Rs. 3,06,701/- from the gross income Working of disallowance also does not specify under which clause of Rule 8D the calculation is made. There is ambiguity in the AO's action as to how the figures 678344X1126578/9658600 have been arrived at. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, I direct

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)

6. From Rs. 12,50,001 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

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)

6. From Rs. 12,50,001 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

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

house 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

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 anley PB) ST ST helier jersey JE4 8RD Channel Islands jersey isla 6. The AO has also mentioned these entries in assessment order at page no 28-29 – para 5.19, 5.20. However, the Ld. AO has only disbelieved the entire explanation backed by documentary evidence by merely relying upon reference by FT & TR division. 7. The funds transferred through