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

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

vii) In view of the above facts, it is observed that the AO has himself admitted that The evidences of X-rays done were found and seized for 4 months period from October 2016 to January 2017 i.e. for the FY 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18 and not for the year under consideration. Therefore, based on the finding

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

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

36) which includes income from commodity market at Rs. 2.64 crores . iv) Statement of Shri Vipin Kumar, partner of assessee firm, recorded on 22.12.2016 wherein reply to question nos. 9, 10, 12, 17 to 26, reproduced at pages 11-13 of the order, he has explained the entire transaction and how Shri Kamal Agrawal, Director of M/s Swift

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

36,000/-. Similarly, the creditor has also disclosed income of Rs.1,74,580/- u/s 44 AD on business receipts of agricultural products. In response to notice u/s 131, the creditor had furnished a reply that he had advanced Rs.25,50,000/- out of his business receipts, both of plying of trucks and agricultural products. In view of all the aforesaid