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

14,32,900/- on 08.11.2016. The total cash sales from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 was shown at Rs. 1,59,71,694/- after the date of 08. 11. 2016 i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 total cash sales was of Rs.1,81,554/- only. Thus, the AO observed that "it is clear that the assessee has channelized his own unaccounted money

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

14 5. Against this assessee has filed appeal before the Honble CIT(A). The assessee has filed WS and details by stating that During the course of assessment proceedings, I have filed the Form 27C duly signed by the purchaser and which clearly mentions that purchase was done for further manufacturing of other products. In section 206C

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.

14. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in not following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Hon’ble High Courts and Hon’ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench. 4 Asst. Year: 2017-18 15. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

14,89,554/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of alleged underreporting sales on estimate\nbasis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of\naccounts, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective\nand sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without\ninvoking any provision

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

14,89,554/- in A.Y. 2016-17 on account of alleged underreporting sales on estimate\nbasis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of\naccounts, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective\nand sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without\ninvoking any provision

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus sundry creditors. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) vide his order after discussing the matter in great details allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the ld. D/R supported the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

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

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.”

14 ITO vs. Ms Rama Allure LLP “23. Even we have examined the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the merits……The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after seeking supplementary report of the Assessing Officer and the reply of the assessee and after considering the contents of the remand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

14. The revenue has taken similar ground no 3 in ITA No. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 as that in ITA no. 167/Jodh/2022. Therefore, bench feels that it is not imperative to repeat facts, grounds and finding of the bench again in ITA no. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 and the decision taken by the bench in ITA no. 167/Jodh/2002 shall apply mutatis mutandis

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

14. The revenue has taken similar ground no 3 in ITA No. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 as that in ITA no. 167/Jodh/2022. Therefore, bench feels that it is not imperative to repeat facts, grounds and finding of the bench again in ITA no. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 and the decision taken by the bench in ITA no. 167/Jodh/2002 shall apply mutatis mutandis