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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

iv) Supreme Court in Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 has held that “Even under the provisions embodied in s. 68 of the said Act it is only when any amount is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year that the section will apply and the amount so credited maya be charged

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

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.

1,11,60,612/-in respect of alleged bogus sales. 18. It has been discussed as above that the assessee company is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of edible oil etc. and that the assessee had furnished complete detailed information and evidences such as the sales, books, sale bill, purchase books, purchases bills, stock register, bank statement

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

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

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

35,225/- towards commission for obtaining such bogus long term capital gain, which the AO has added u/s 69C is also confirmed for the same reasons. Addition of Rs. 8,08,458/- to cover up and for certain identified defects in the books of account admitted in course of assessment by the Ld. A.R represented the case, is also hereby

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

bogus (iii) CIT vs. H.S. Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court) Deposit of cash in the account of creditors just before giving loan to the assessee would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee. (iv) Aravali Trading Co. V/s ITO 25-1-2007 (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 Once the existence