DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form-10B FAQ (P.B. No. 17) which are available on department’s official website and can be visited through the given link : https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/form10bfaq#:~:text=Is%20it%20mandato ry%20to%20file,in%20the%20online%20mode%20only. Your honor will find that Question

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form-10B FAQ (P.B. No. 17) which are available on department’s official website and can be visited through the given link : https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/form10bfaq#:~:text=Is%20it%20mandato ry%20to%20file,in%20the%20online%20mode%20only. Your honor will find that Question

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the assessee only for the reason that it is being claimed during the assessment. Which is quite arbitrary, unjustified and against the law of natural justice. 7. That during the year the sansthaan has paid Rs. 1.00 crore to Rajasthan State University as endowment fund and this is application of income

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

115 taxmann.com 345 (High Court of Madras) 3. Dr. AmritLalMangal vs. Union of India [2015] 62 taxamnn.com 310 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana) 4. Biswajit Das vs. Union of India [2019] 103 taxmann.com 290 (High Court of Delhi) The appellant has mainly submitted that- "In view of the above submissions order u/s 2004 of the Act imposing late fees

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

115/- u/s 69A. 5. The order passed by the Ld CIT Appeals is bad in law and facts, void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add or amend any ground of appeal 3. The issue raised in the ground no. 1 is regarding rejection of the books of account