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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

66,275/- Rs. 4,46,980/-” Interest from total loan 11.2 The ld. AO based on total area of building with that of area given on rent has allowed. The interest claim to the assessee contending that the balance property is not completed and therefore, proportionally, the ld. AO has disallowed the interest payment of Rs.3,16,663/-. The relevant

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

66,473/- from Laxmangarh-Salasar Road. Apart from these receipts, the assessee has also shown other receipts of Rs.8,73,575/-. On the gross receipts of Rs.13,67,58,558/-, gross profit of Rs.62,15,997/- was shown and after claiming deduction of Rs.35,92,846/- u/s 80IA, the assessee has shown taxable income of Rs.26

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

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short AO ] I.T.A. No. 399/Jodh/2024 ACIT vs. Mukesh Shah 2 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)was justified in deleting the addition

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

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

SRSL CHARITABLE TRUST ,UDAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsrsl Charitable Trust, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Srsl House, Pulla Bhuwana Jaipur. Road, National Highway No. 8, Udaipur. Pan No. Aaats 3819 F Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 02/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Activities Carried Out By The Assessee Are Not Genuinely Charitable & Also Not Carried Out In Accordance With The Objects Of The Trust. 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Making Various Incorrect & Irrelevant Observations Particularly Holding That Rental Income Received From Letting Out The Properties Stated To Be Acquired For The Purpose Of Providing Educational Services To The Students Is An Activity Of Commercial In Nature Hit

housing these colleges conducted by Lala Lajpatrai Institute which was used by the colleges for 209 days and it was vacant for 76 days and was let out only for 80 days only when it was not needed by the colleges. In the course of this letting out the assessee had incurred expenses for electricity and air conditioners. Letting

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

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

house property',\n(iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and\n(v) 'income from other sources' cannot at all be adjusted against\nunexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon.\nGujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure\nshould be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon. Gujarat High

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.

section 69 merely on the basis of the statement of the said partner without any further supporting evidence being on record. Om Prakash Joshi vs. Income-tax Officer [2009] 34 SOT 33 (Jodhpur) (URO) since assessee had explained that stamp duty was paid by him out of advance amount as reflected in balance sheet and only accounting adjustment remained

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.

section 69 merely on the basis of the statement of the said partner without any further supporting evidence being on record. Om Prakash Joshi vs. Income-tax Officer [2009] 34 SOT 33 (Jodhpur) (URO) since assessee had explained that stamp duty was paid by him out of advance amount as reflected in balance sheet and only accounting adjustment remained

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

1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order of the assessing officer without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. PCIT has not been able to establish the pre-requisite conditions for invoking the revisional provision.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee