Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ce...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. Shri Puna Ram Jangid, Jodhpur (A.y. 2007-08

High Court 05 Jan 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. Shri Puna Ram Jangid, Jodhpur (A.y. 2007-08
Date of order
05 Jan 2017
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. Shri Puna Ram Jangid, Jodhpur (A.y. 2007-08, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 73 / 2015 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur Versus Shri Puna Ram Jangid, Jodhpur (A.Y. 2007-08) ----Appellant ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. KK Bissa For Respondent(s) : --- _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.R. MOOLCHANDANIJudgment 05/01/2017 This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the orderdated 30.09.2014 passed by learned Income Tax AppellateTribunal deleting certain additions made by the Assessing Officerwith the income of assessee. It is submitted by learned counselfor the appellant that the Assessing Officer made addition of thetaxable income earned by the appellant by the sale of land whichis nothing but a commercial one. It is further submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalhaserred by deleting the addition pertaining to the unexplainedadvances and capital contribution for sale of land. On examination of facts stated in the order impugned, we donot find any merit with the argument advanced. Suffice to mention that the land said to be sold was admittedly agricultural land and,therefore, no addition as made by the Assessing Officer wastaxable in the eye of law. So far as the unexplained advances and capital contributionare concerned, learned counsel ITAT examined the same in detailand arrived at definite finding of facts which in no manner sufferfrom any such error that may constitute any substantial question of law. The appeal, thus, is having no merit. Hence, dismissed. (G.R. MOOLCHANDANI)J. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil Kumar Choudhary
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan