APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

65,21,700/-. The assessee filed a rectification application before CPC, which was rejected, and thereafter filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), however, upheld the action of CPC, holding that since the audit report in Form 10B was verified only on 17.04.2023 beyond the due date for filing such report the CPC was justified in denying

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

65,06,891/- and claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act as he invested net consideration towards investment in the purchase/construction two residential houses. The assessee furnished these information in the ITR and furnished supporting documents during the course of assessment proceedings and in due appreciation of flats and law in force, it has been allowed by the Assessing Officer

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

65,000/- respectively given which have been deleted vide page 23 of the CIT(A) order. Hence, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have confined enhancement only in the years where the subject matter or related issue involved in those year before him not of the other years i.ePower of enhancement conferred on CIT(A) can be exercised only

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

65,000/- on 21.09.2012 Rs.50,000/- on 07.12.2013 and Rs.80,000/- on 02.03.2012 come closer to date of cash deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- on A/c of Ire application on 10.02.2012. Shri Mangilal Gurjar do have PAN Card, however he is not assessed to tax as income is below taxable limit. Therefore, the appellant explanation for share application by Shri

M/S. RASIK PRIYA RESORTS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Jodh/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S.Rasik Priya Resorts Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Ltd., V Of Income Tax, 11, Mangal Complex, S. Central Circle-2, Udaipur. Saifan Choraha, Bedla Road, Udaipur. Pan: Aafcr 5546 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Rakesh Lodha – Ca Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

65,000/- on 21.09.2012 Rs.50,000/- on 07.12.2013 and Rs.80,000/- on 02.03.2012 come closer to date of cash deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- on A/c of Ire application on 10.02.2012. Shri Mangilal Gurjar do have PAN Card, however he is not assessed to tax as income is below taxable limit. Therefore, the appellant explanation for share application by Shri

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

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)

65,056 19,32,546 Pg 137 1. Difference amount of Rs. 3,62,82,410 being market value to cost value 2. Net value of assets by granting set off against the 22,55,72,458 Portfolio Para 5.19 negative current (3,62,82,410 + Para 25.2 3 assets 80,10,38,714 Pg 28-29 A/c balance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

1,65,87,450/- as per assessee's own submission. In that case, the assessee was liable to file Wealth Tax Return for the A.Ys. 2012-13 to 2015-16, but the assessee never filed Wealth Tax Return for these assessment years. Thus it can be clearly construed the above piece of land was treated by the assessee as stock

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The case is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete assessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void. On the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of penalty u/s 271(1

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further