M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. • Amendment to section 36(1)(va) introducing Explanation-2, which clarifies that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply for the purpose of determining the due date, vis a vis, section 36(1)(va), will apply prospectively. • Without prejudice, even if it is not allowable under section 36(1)(va), alternatively

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) dated 01.02.2021 is suffering from specific defects, hence the order so passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order of the assessing officer therefore, considered liable to revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act. 8 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation / B/f business losses & paid taxes on MAT. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny and after issue of notice u/s 143(2)/ 142(1) the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28/12/2019 after thoroughly considering the reply furnished by the assessee at a total income of Rs.10,85,93,969/- by making following

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

143(3) in considering detailed submissions and documentary evidence in support of agricultural income shown at Rs. 58,17,777/-, warrant the Ld. PCIT to hold it erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the present case, the learned CIT exercised his revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act. Let's refer

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143(3) read with under section 147 dated 22.11.2011 also. The assessee has not furnished any details of working of claim of Rs. 81,99,928/— as well as working of Rs. 16,57,517/— Hence to this extent there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly material facts. In view of above

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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

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

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

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 30.03.2019 has thus been rendered erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on the issue of non-verification of Large share premium received by the assessee company during the year and the applicability of 56(2)(viib) and any other relevant section of the Income

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,53,00,090/- making the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by giving relief, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order

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

143 taxmann.com 402 wherein, the decision in the case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 has been followed. I also find support from the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikash Jain [2023] 146 taxmann.com 210. Accordingly, addition of Rs.1,65,22,307/- u/s 68 of the Act is hereby

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

143(3) determining total income at Rs.9,53,25,990/- by disallowing additional depreciation of Rs.21,81,146/-. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance so made by the AO and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 3 HARMONY PLASTICS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

143(3) of the Act by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi on 09/04/2021 and addition was made related to duty draw back not shown in the return of income amount to Rs.12,547/-. The Ld. PCIT by invoking provisions of section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebalaji Marbles & Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -1, 12 Dunne Market, Bargawan, Udaipur. Jabalpur Road, Madhya Pradesh – 483501. Pan No. Aaccb 4886 C Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca (Virtual) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [Cit(A)], Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Books Of Account During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Enhancing The Addition On Account Of Gp Addition Of Rs 94,24,706/-. 3. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Comparing The Gp Ratio Of Assessee As 2.07% Whereas The Assessee Explained

section 131/ 270A etc. Therefore, as it appears, in absence of specific mention of the CIT(A) u/s 145, prima facie the same cannot be envisaged to empower the CIT(A) to reject the books by substituting his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the present case, again there was no specific defect noticed in the books