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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

exempted from tax, past savings, loans, gifts, liquidation of investment or sale of another property etc., notice under section 148 cannot be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction is the essential requirement has to be shown that there has been reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax. The reasons recorded by the Assessing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239 Para 4.2.3 at he assesee utilized the sale proceeds on of Para 8,9, & No adverse pg 12 of the the sale

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 of the Act as it is established by the investigation\nagency that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus transactions in the form of\naccommodation entry. Since, the transaction made has been established in the hand\nof the assessee, which is duly mentioned in the CD as well as documents available\nwith the department, therefore, the onus

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

exemption of the LTCG of Rs.1,55,87,077/- u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Ld.AO has treated the entire transaction as bogus and, therefore, he added back the total sale price of Rs.1,58,67,077/- under section 68

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

68,71,111/- claimed by him under Section 80IC of the Act. The written submissions of the appellant regarding this issue are reproduced as below: "Ground of Appeal no. 13 covered u/s 801C Para no. 6 of the assessment order: During the Financial Year 2012-13, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16871111/-ws 801C of the Income

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. But in view of section 68, where any sum is found

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

exempt income during the relevant assessment year—Thus, while recording the said finding, the AO has taken one of the plausible views in allowing the claim of the assessee— Therefore, CIT could not have set aside the order of assessment merely on the ground of inadequacy of enquiry—Order passed by the CIT was not sustainable in law hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

exemption under the relevant beneficial provisions, the same should not be denied. We must always keep the object of the Act in view while interpreting the section. The legislative intention must be the foundation of the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021) 126 taxmann.com 68

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

section. The legislative intention must be the foundation\nof the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent\n(2021) 126 taxmann.com 68 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nbeneficial exemption

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

section. The legislative intention must be the foundation\nof the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent\n(2021) 126 taxmann.com 68 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that\nbeneficial exemption

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

68 TTJ (JP-TRIB) 731. 5. Provisions of Sec 40A (3) do not apply in respect of an expenditure which is not to be claimed as deduction u/s 30 to 37/of 1.T. Act, 1961. In the instant case payment is for purchase of goods in stock in trade which is again carry forward as closing stock to next year

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

exempted income amount to Rs.89,18,157/-. The amount of Rs.89,18,157/- was added back with the total income of the assessee for contravening of section 14A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. I.T.A. No. 125/Jodh/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2015-16 CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) without considering the submission of the assessee

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Exemption Uaipur. Uaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AAATD2089C Appellant Respondent Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Appellant by Sh. Karni Dan, Addl.CIT (Sr.DR) Respondent by Date of Hearing 07/05/2025 29/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari