ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

section 145(3) of the Act, considered the purchases of Rs. 85,18,926/- from following two parties as bogus:- 1. M/s Bhoomi Sales Corporation Rs. 57,91,028/- 2

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

145(3) and without rejecting thebooks of accounts on assumption and presumption without any material evidence, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any provision of the Act/law. Hence the addition so made

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

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

145(3) and without rejecting the books of accounts on assumption and presumption without any material evidence, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any provision of the Act/law. Hence the addition

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

145(3) of the Act and made addition of Rs.7,82,95,551/- by treating the purchases made from the six parties as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. He further held that these purchases were sold outside books of accounts and thus, made addition of unaccounted profit of Rs.1,23,87,853/- 5 ITA 205/Jodh/2019 ACIT

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

145(3) and without rejecting thebooks of accounts on assumption and presumption without any material evidence,without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective and sense despite available on record. Also erred in making the addition without invoking any provision of the Act/law. Hence the addition so made

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the assessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name and office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void. 6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void. It is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition and quash

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

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed the long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt under section10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd (in short, 'scrip'). The assessee purchased 2800 shares on 09/03/2012 for Rs.2,80,000/-. The said scrip

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.:

2) not issued in specific format prescribed by CBDT, rendered the assessment order bad in law or void-ab-initio. We consider it appropriate to decide the appeal on merits. 7. After giving thoughtful consideration on the merits of the case, perusal on record and written submissions filed before us, it is noted that the assessee has raised two issues

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

2 TO MANUFACTURING EXPENSES LABOUR PAID ET DIRECT INCOME 224070 DO 124070.00 DIRECT INCOIS TO PURCHASE-FINISHED GOODS/STOCK IN TRADE INDIRECT INCOME 5993701.0 50937010 5551520 PURCHAS 384444911 8856011 201611435 0 61 61 TO GROSS PROFIL 16198537 10404657 BCLOSING STOCK CRUSHER COOOS 22707686 22797686. 12775431 412319067 220098329 TOTAL 412319067 220098329 10 67 SON' 4. The assessing officer in its Assessment order

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, 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

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

2. That the said deposits were out of sales of the stock made by the assessee and declared in the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. That the stock purchase and sale transactions were examined by Income Tax Department in a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the business premises of the assessee and the excess stock

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

section 69A of the Act cannot be made. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has to be sustained. It would also be pertinent to mention that that the assessee received notice u/s 143(2) for AY 2017-18 on 09.08.2018. Therefore, prior to 09.08.2018, the assessee did not even have an inkling that his case would be picked

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

145(3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied as against negative NP rate of 6.97% shown by the assessee-company. On appeal by the assessee, vide appellate order dated 22.07.2018 the Ld. CIT (A-2), Udaipur in Appeal No. 10181/2018-19 upheld the rejection of books and further directed to estimate profit before depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation

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

2 raised in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 stands dismissed. 12.6 The revenue has taken similar ground ITA No. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 that of 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

2 raised in ITA No. 167/Jodh/2022 stands dismissed. 12.6 The revenue has taken similar ground ITA No. 168 & 169/Jodh/2022 that of 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