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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2014. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment, the AO found from the ITR filed by the assessee that there were huge sundry creditors having closing balance of Rs. 34,76,10,409/- which are outstanding less than one year as claimed

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Bogus. The AO has arbitrarily without making any inquiry has doubted the identity of the Dubai Bank accounts & declared as ‘Undisclosed’. Also, the Ld. AO without assigning any strong reason or document evidence the audited financial statements of Aptus Trading DMCC and simply declared the funds provided by Mr. Arpit to Mr. Suresh as not explained. 9. It would

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

10(38).\n(4) Rahul Gupta (HUF) vs. ACIT 151 taxmann.com 367 (Raipur-\nITAT)(2023) – Assessee had not carried out any genuine transaction and\nhad only obtained accommodation entry of bogus LTCG of penny stock,\nthus the addition made by the AO as undisclosed fund of the assessee\nrouted back in the garb of aforesaid transaction of purchase/sale of shares

PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 69A of the Act representing bank deposits rejecting the explanations and evidence adduced by the appellant with support of judgement of higher judicial forums and he prayed that same may be deleted. 9. The Ld. Addl CIT (DR) on the other hand supported the impugned order. 10. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record, case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAOTA C ROAD vs. HRDK BULLION AND REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

section 69A of the act and pleaded that the decision of the CIT (A) be upheld. 8. We have heard both the sides and given thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix discussed hereinabove. It is undisputed fact that there is not even a whisper of any defect, error or infirmity pointed out either by the AO or the Ld. Addl

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from the end of the month in which return is filed

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.

10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AOgrossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 by holding the sales transactions made by assessee to M/s Milap Enterprises as unexplained. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in holding the sales made

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

purchases is to\nbe added not substantial part of transaction—When in subsequent assessment year in AY 2011-\n12, AO himself made addition only @ 10% of net profit in assessment order passed under section\n143(3); book profit shown by assessee @ 11.45% for year under consideration was reasonable\nand justified-Therefore, assessee also succeeded on merit-Assssee's appeal allowed

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchased flats from the company but\nthe transactions mentioned in this ledger accounts were not executed with the company.\nThis is again avoiding tactics even when the assessee company has been caught with the\nevidences of cash transaction. There is cash transaction as recorded on these documents\nwith the flat purchasers, which is proved from these documents. The assessee company

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

MAHENDRA KUMAR MUTHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalmahendra Kumar Mutha, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S R.B. Mutha & Co. Income Tax, B-11/A, Mandore Mandi, Circle-3, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Abmpm 02466 M Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 145 can only be invoked where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or the completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee. In the present case there is no dispute as regards method of accounting. Therefore, there is nothing on record to arrive at contrary

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

purchase By Commission Wheat Journal 44 1,00,42,400.00 flour sales To Commission Journal 45 50,212.00 Sanjay Rathi HUF Journal 46 9,85,596 By MUDAT Journal 48 1,83,808.00 1,02,26,208.00 1,02,26,208.00 The whole scenarios show that the fund repaid by the assessee to the above concerns was again received back

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

34,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected 5 Asst. Year: 2017-18 the submissions of the assessee by observing that the sales registers and debtors realization submitted lack corroborative evidence providing cash receipt from customers and that the VAT records are however while acknowledging the VAT receipts but these do not conclusively proved

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus. Therefore, in my considered view, the addition has been made purely on the basis of suspicion. Such action of authorities below cannot be affirmed. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Thus, ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is allowed." Nand Kumar Taneja & Anr. vs. ITO(2019) 55 CCH 0705 (DelTrib) Para