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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

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

56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

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

56,778/-). 6. That the tax effect involved in this case is above the limit laid down in Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the CBDT, (Judicial Section) New Delhi." That the appellant reserves its right to add, amend or alter the ground(s) of appeal on or before the date, the appeal is finally heard." 3. The brief

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

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of CA No. 6580/2021 Etc. Page 56 of 59 www.taxmann.com the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs. 5.6 Since, there is no finding

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.

56,06,219/-. After considering the already declared gross profit of Rs.4,36,79,809/-, the differential amount of Rs. 1,19,26,410/- is added by the AO to the total income of the assessee. It is seen that the total turnover of Rs. 185,35,46,666/- comprises an amount of Rs. 1,11,60,612/- which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

56,263/- which was not found to be agricultural income on inquiry, as claimed by the assessee . The Assessee, upon receipt of notice, has filed cross-objections on following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs.19,06,200/- in respect of cash deposits