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

loss of Rs.59,98,438/-.” 3. In reply, the assessee submitted the details which was already submitted before the Ld.AO. The details of submission of the assessee in its letter dated 13/02/2024 (APB pages 8 to 25) is reproduced below:- “2.1 During the year under consideration the appellant had given on a short term lease its property being a fully

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

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)

set off of any loss,— (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (b) under the head "Income from house property

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)

set off of any loss,— (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (b) under the head "Income from house property

AMRINDER SINGH JOSAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3,, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA 492/Jodh/2023 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

House No. 01 Green Field Sri Ganganagar. Near, New Dhan Mandi, Sri Ganganagar. Raj. [PAN:AFZPJ9321B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Suresh Ojha, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

loss, claim for disallowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting aside the order; the lTAT also considered and decided in fovouroftheassessee on the merits

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

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law." 9 | P a g e Ratio of these cases fully apply