M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

TDS has been deducted on interest paid to unsecured loans. ii) The A.O. has appraised the claim of interest paid on term loan, O.D. limit and unsecured loans after satisfying himself that these loans are for the purpose of warehousing activities of the assessee business. iii) While framing the assessment order learned A.O. has reviewed the reason for investment

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

v) Since, in the seized documents in the "Total" column, gross receipts for FY 2011-12 are noted as Rs. 10,38,94,812/- whereas in the audited accounts, the gross receipts are shown as Rs. 8,71,39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

47,70,913 NIL Thus, in respect of two parties in whose name advances were shown as outstanding, the appellant duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, thus fulfilled necessary ingredients of provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. Even there is no case of attracting the provisions of section

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

47,372/- (37.74%) and net loss of Rs.32,77,48,176/- (11.96%). On being asked it was submitted that contract receipts of the assessee- company during the year declined considerably to Rs.2,46,73.49.728/- from Rs 4,28,36,27,201/- as it was in immediately preceding year. The reasons for this down fall as is explained by the assessee

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2016-17 2 2. At the outset, we advert that all the appeals are common and have a same nature of fact. Therefore, all the appeals are taken together, heard together