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

144. 9. On perusal of subsection 3 to section 145 as reproduced above it may be noted that the Assessing Officer may reject the method of accounting employed by the assessee and determine the profits from PGBP & IOS at the best of his judgement. The said section has two limbs. First, a case where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied

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

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

144 (SC) " Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that the foundation of reopening was no source of investment

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that the foundation of reopening was no source of investment

MAHENDRA SINGH DHARAMPAL & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blemahendra Singh Dharampal & Acit Circle 2, Co Udaipur - 313001 15-18, Diamond Plazza, Hiran Magri Sect 5, Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aadfm 9764 A Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Revenue By Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Udaipur Dated 19.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 1,54,500/- Levied U/S 271(1)(C) By The Ao.

144 read with Section 113 of the Act vide order dated 16th March, 2014 with the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by disallowing

SHRI ROHIT YADAV,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Rohit Yadav, The Assistant S/O.Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav, V Commissioner Of Income Village – 2Ml, Nathwali, S Tax, Circle Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar – 335001. Pan: Bbspk6028C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The relevant paragraphs 8, 9, 10 & 11 are reproduced here as under: “8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and found that there is no need to interfere the addition made by AO u/s 144 of the IT Act, total amounting to Rs. 16,90,000/- + 518/- interest. During

SHRI GOPAL GOUSHALA,BARMER vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2016-17 Sh. Gopal Goushala, Income Tax Officer, C/O D. Kansara & Associates, Vs (Exemption), Jodhpur Ca’S 84, Narpat Nagar, Opportunity Shyam Restourant Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj) 342001 Pan: Aaatg2071M Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Gopal Goushala Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Jodhpur Dated 12.02.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.That The Lower Authorities Erred In Computing/Sustaining The Assessment Made Ex Parte U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Not Allowing Benefits Of Exemption U/S 11 Of The It Act To The Trust Duly Registered U/S 12Aa. 3. That The Lower Authorities Erred In Framing Assessment In The Status Of Aop Instead Of Religious & Charitable Trust.” Sh. Gopal Goushala

section 12AA, copy of trust deed and bank account etc,. The relevant paragraph is reproduced here as under:- “In compliance to show cause notice dated 12.12.2018, the assessee society did not submit any reply/details date. Therefore, I have no alternate but the complete the assessment proceedings ex-parte u/s 144 on the basis of material available on record. The assessee

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The assessee declared total income of Rs.8,70,900/- in relation to turnover of Rs.5,06,91,098/- during the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AO found that during the demonetisation period, the assessee deposited can in bank account amount to Rs.62,21,480/-. Without finding any details related

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

section 40(a)(ia) be made. The AO is directed to delete separate addition of Rs. 13,87,72.635/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. GOA no. 4 is, therefore, allowed. 8.4. GoA no, 2- "The Id. AO has erred in rejecting the books of accounts. The Id. AO has erred in applying ne t profit rate

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

disallowance of the claim of “Shutdown Wages” for assessment year 2014-15 in the Assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 while assessing income at Rs. 87,91,790/- on 10.12.2019. 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who has upheld the finding