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)

house property, income from business and profession, income from capital gain and income from other sources. 3.2 After considering the facts of the case and replies submitted by the assessee ld. AO noted that the assessee deposited cash of Rs 80,00,000/- in the bank account between 9.11.2016 to 30.11.2016. While the assessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain

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

70,00,000/-\ntherefore the amount belongs to the difference in stock should not be\ntaxed again, because by the act of Ld. Assessing officer it amounts to\ndouble taxation, which is not permissible in the Income Tax Laws.\nTherefore, it is hereby humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.\n25,00,000/- may kindly be deleted.\nAlternatively if this

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

section 80IB became mandatory. Therefore it was construed that like report u/s 44AB, only one report can be e-filed hence, composite report comprising of the aggregate deduction was electronically filed at the portal of the income tax department. After end of the year separate trial balances are generated with 9 ITA 171/Johd/2018 Nokha Agro Services Vs PCIT reference

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

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 we found

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

70 lacs the assessee made payments of Rs. 20 lacs in cash. Further it is worthwhile to mention here that the assessee had purchased this land on 14.07.2015 and started the work of land filling, levelling and development on 15.07.2018 and further sold the land on 09.11.2015. It means the assessee work of land filling, levelling and development last

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

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

70 Vinayak, Durgadas nagar, Ward-1, Pali-306401. Pali. PAN/GIR No.: AISPA 8368 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajendra Jain (C.A.), Smt Raksha Birla (C.A.) & Shri Mohit Soni (Adv.) Revenue by : Miss Kajal Singh (JCIT) a Date of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07/09/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed