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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

property was not registered in his name. However, after taking into consideration the provisions of section 54F, the ld. CIT (A) found that the only condition for claiming exemption under section 54F is that the asset transferred is long term capital asset, not being a residential house. The assessee has not transferred a residential house but a long term capital

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

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1-4-2015, exemption claimed by assessee under section 54 during assessment year 2013-14 would not fall within ambit of amended provision Held, yes Whether, therefore, assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under - section 54 to extent of value of two residential house properties and not just one Held, yes [Para 17] [In favour of assessee] The case

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 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 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 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

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

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

1. On perusal of the case records, it is noticed that in the audited financial statements, the assessee has disclosed details of fixed assets in two different heads i.e. property, plant and machinery (note 4 to B/S) used for business purposes, WIP and Investment property (note 5 to B/S) which are meant for investment purposes. On verification of details

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

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.

1) asking for the details. Further, the Ld. PCIT issued the notice dated 09/01/2024 4 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited work, control and manage any land, buildings, offices, factories, shop, godowns, farm house, colonies, malls, multiplexes, multistories, apartments, flats, shopping complexes, townships, row houses, and other works and conveniences and to build, maintain and run hotel, restaurant, resorts

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

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

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

house property or under the head income from business. Under\nno circumstances, such income can be treated as undisclosed income and\nassessed under the head income from other sources by invoking provisions of\nsection 68 read with section 115 BBE.\n12.\nIn view of that matter, we hold that the impugned order is infirm and\nperverse to the facts

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

SANJAY SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that

RAJ KUMARI SINGHAL,MOUNT ABU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

property of the assessee was attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on basis of the Pan- APEPS7895G which is not related to the assessee. The relevant part of summon of ED dated 16/04/2019 bearing the relevant paragraph in reproduced as below: - I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 112/Jodh/2022 & Ors 8 The ld. AR in argument further placed that