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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

iii) Before me, the Ld. AR of the appellant has contended that the Ld. AO has made the addition on the basis of his findings given in the assessment order for AY 2011-12 wherein similar additions on account of suppression of X-ray receipts was made. It was brought to my notice that in first appeal

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

36,65,110/-.\nIf some shares were purchased @ 15.93 per share, some other shares may have been\npurchased on higher rate as well as some on lower rate. Some shares were sold at lower\nrate and some on higher rate. Shares were purchased and sold on different dates on\ndifferent rates. When the AO has total purchase and sale price

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

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.

36,79,809/- comes to Rs. 1,15,91,592/-. Thus, the addition on this account is restricted to Rs.1,15,91,592/- and the appellant gets a relief of Rs.3,34,818/-. This ground is therefore partly allowed. Grounds no.7-15 deal with the addition of Rs.1,11,60,612/- on account of sales made to M/s. Milap Enterprises

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.”

36] At the outset, we would like to draw the attention to the fact that the Ld. AO specifically sought details of unsecured loans appearing in the books amounting to INR 2,09,60,81,590 and the respondent LLP duly provided the details of the same. Hence, clearly the Ld. AO has erred while stating in SCN that

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

III in the state of Haryana on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Basis Notice by the concessionaire for payment of compensation on account of delay events, additional works/change of scope and breach of contract by the authority." In view of the facts furnished by the assessee, the amount of Rs.1,72,77,91,273/- shown

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