MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

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 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which authorized the computation of fee u/s 234E on processing of the statement furnished u/s 200, on fees can be levied u/s 234E of the Act proper to 01.06.2015. 3. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour.” 3

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

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

3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment 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

3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment 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

3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment 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

3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment 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

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

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

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

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

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