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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

3) of the Act. It is\nsubmitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of\nthe assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who\nwere partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the\nassessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

3) in computation of income. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld AO for not allowing set off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- in the computation sheet. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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.

section 145 of the Act to reject the books of account to estimate trading result which is contrary to settled principles of law. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 256 ITR Page 243 held as under: - "That even if technically it is held that provisions

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS on such payment. Undisputedly, as per Section 194A(3)(iii)(a), TDS is not required to be made from

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

section 269T of the IT Act, 1961 vide his order dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the JCIT, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. Now the assessee, has come in appeal before the Tribunal

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Section 194Q cannot be\nclaimed or allowed.\n6.2.3 CBDT vide Instruction No. 5/2013 has laid down the procedure to verify\nthe TDS claim of the assessee and allow the same if it is found to be in order.\nLooking to the facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following\nthe instructions issued by the CBDT in this regard

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

3 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) Section 194IA of the Act and has wrongly held the assessee to be in default

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

3 Rajesh Kumar Nahar & Othrs.vs. ITO(TDS) Section 194IA of the Act and has wrongly held the assessee to be in default

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

TDS under section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same