DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS deducted u/s.194A, (v) Rs.11281311 being cash deposited in banks accounts of assessee. 3.1 Assessee made its reply vide letter dated 21.11.2017 which is reproduced in the impugned order. After considering the submissions of 4 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 the assessee, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the additions as stated

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

10,74,429 1. Amount Outstanding for Earlier Years Kamla Amba, Canal deposit. Dn. Dungarpur 2. Details was submitted at the time of hearing for the Asstt. Year 2013-14. 3. Amount was received earlier against deposits deducted in earlier years, wrongly the transfer entry was not passed in earlier year. (So the credit appeared) 4. Copy of Ledger account

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

26 Varaha Infra Ltd. 8.1 The charge of interest under the above sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

10. It is relevant to mention here that there was slight fall in G.P. rate which was explained by the assessee as depended on multiple factors. It is noted that even in the assessment year 2016-07 the G.P. rate was reduced to 4.09% as 15 Asst. Year: 2017-18 against the gross profit rate of 8.36% declared

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts