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)

9. Section 115BAC reads as under:- “115BAC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house. It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that: “Reassessment Reasons to believe fishing enquiry impugned notice clearly indicates that the AO merely wanted to know the details of sources of funds invested by the assessee in purchasing a flat AO had no basis to reasonably entertain a belief that any part of income of the assessee

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

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

house property and even if it is taken as income from other source, the Assessee would be allowed depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the nature of assets from which rent income

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P 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 03/01/2020 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 Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 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 Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

v) property of assessee has been given on lease at lower rent whereas property of the trustees has been taken at higher rent and higher security deposit is also paid. Thus, there is violation of section 12AA(4) of the Act. 8. For better understanding of law, it would be relevant to reproduce section 12AA(4) as applicable

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)

9 Hybrid On Shares 1140648 1111439 70486354 Total 1,29,62,840 1,23,75,694 80,10,38,714 20 Indu Bala Porwal, Udaipur Ld. CIT (A) in his order at page 128-129 in Para 25.2 has granted relief on account difference arising on account of market valuation as against cost. The cost value reflected in portfolio statement

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

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

9. Now while dealing with point/issue No. 4, we observed that during the year under consideration, the assessee has obtained unsecured loans amounting 19 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT to Rs.1,95,34,000 from various persons, but creditworthiness of none of them was verified by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 131 or Section

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 (11A). v. During the course of assessment proceeding the A.O. has accepted the claim of exempted income of handling and transportation only after detailed scrutiny of receipts and expenditure claimed their against. vi. Your honour has failed to consider that H.O. (Khara) has tractor shown in fixed assets schedule of which w.d.v. is Rs. 2,47,459.00 used

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

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

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

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

RAJKUMARI 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

RAJKUMARI 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

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

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

Bench: Us.

V;ksa fdl QeZ@O;fDr ls lacaf/kr gS] d`i;k bldk Li"Vhdj.k nsos rFkk lacaf/kr cfg;ksa ls lR;kiu djkosaA mRrj ;g dkxt esjh izksijkbZVjf’ki QeZ eSa- uodkj VªsMlZ ls lacaf/kr gS] blesa rhu yksxksa dks m/kkj fn;s x;s :i;ksa dk fooj.k ntz gS] tks fd esjh

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.

v. Disclosure of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in construction of Mount View School and house of assessee's son Sh. Om Prakash. 24. As per the ld DR in the return of income the assessee offered to tax only the income as noted in (i) to (iv) above, aggregating Rs. 20 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019