SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

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

2) along with notice under Section 142(1) dated 03.10.2017 which were served on the assessee. Copy of 3 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 20.09.2016. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted relevant details/information which were considered. Upon consideration of the detailed information, the AO completed the assessment under 3 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 vide his order dated 31.10.2017 at a total income

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name of recipient deducted 1,00,42,501/- 10,04,250/- 5,29,804/- 15,34,054/- Int. to NBFC u/s 194-A AU Small Finance Int. to NBFC 17,94,183/- 1,79,418/- 92,142/- 2,71,560/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services Int. to NBFC Bajaj 2

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name of recipient deducted 1,00,42,501/- 10,04,250/- 5,29,804/- 15,34,054/- Int. to NBFC u/s 194-A AU Small Finance Int. to NBFC 17,94,183/- 1,79,418/- 92,142/- 2,71,560/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services Int. to NBFC Bajaj 2

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name of recipient deducted 1,00,42,501/- 10,04,250/- 5,29,804/- 15,34,054/- Int. to NBFC u/s 194-A AU Small Finance Int. to NBFC 17,94,183/- 1,79,418/- 92,142/- 2,71,560/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services Int. to NBFC Bajaj 2

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

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

142(1) of the Act issued on 27/12/2017. The assessee failed to submit the return under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The assessee declared total income of Rs.8,70,900/- in relation to turnover of Rs.5,06,91,098/- during the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AO found that during the demonetisation period, the assessee

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.

142(1) along with query letter dated 14/12/2016. The volume of documents had been submitted and also produced before the Id AO during the assessment proceedings which are on record. 7. The Ld. DR supported the order of CIT (A) but he failed to rebut the contention raised by the Ld. AR and disprove the claim of the assessee

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

142 TTJ 128. Tamilnadu Ware Housing Corporation 292 ITR 310 . Willson and Co. Ltd. 121 TTJ 258 (Chennai Trib.) Dy CIT vs. Amod Petrochem (P) Ltd. (2008) 217 CTR (Guj.) 401. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. Relying upon the above cited decisions

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS is liable to be deducted. Therefore, disallowance of interest paid of Rs.4,46,546/- is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the 100% of expense which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued by the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted that she has deposited the cash amounting to Rs. 68,95,000/- in her saving bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce and also explained such 3 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO deposits were made out of cash in hand

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

2 The Ld CIT(A), NFAC further erred in upholding the disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section 70 of the Act. 3 The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last ITR for the AY 2010-11 and after that assessee has not filed its ITRs. As per information received from ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur vide letter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last ITR for the AY 2010-11 and after that assessee has not filed its ITRs. As per information received from ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur vide letter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last ITR for the AY 2010-11 and after that assessee has not filed its ITRs. As per information received from ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur vide letter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last ITR for the AY 2010-11 and after that assessee has not filed its ITRs. As per information received from ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur vide letter

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a L/H of Partner of M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a dealer of Bharat Petroleum. The assessee firm filed its last ITR for the AY 2010-11 and after that assessee has not filed its ITRs. As per information received from ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur vide letter

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

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

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred