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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section 14A basically lays down the manner in which the disallowance

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

disallowance of deduction claimed on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), while processing the returns of income under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly

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

disallowance of deduction claimed on account of delayed payment of employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund(PF) and Employees State Insurance (ESI), while processing the returns of income under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

3) in computation of income. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the action of Ld AO for not allowing set off of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- in the computation sheet. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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.

3) and estimating GP is perverse to the facts or record. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 1,19,26,410/-. 17. In ground No. 7 to 14, the appellant has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs 1,11,60,612/-in respect of alleged bogus sales. 18. It has been discussed as above that the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Disallowance under section 14A of the I T Act: (i) With regard to your honor’s invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, we humbly submit that your honor has duly accepted and stated that AO has made a query with reference to section 14A r.w.r 8D during assessment u/s 143(3). The assessee

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance under section 36(1)(va). 3. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the alternate plea that

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer may omit to make certain\nadditions of income or omit to disallow

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making substantial additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who confirmed a significant portion of the additions.", "held": "The Tribunal held that for an assessment under section 153A, additions can only be made based on incriminating material found during the search. In the absence of such material, no addition or disallowance

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer may omit to make certain\nadditions of income or omit to disallow

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

3) dated 27-12-2006 was sought to be reopened on 6-3-2007 solely on the basis that the benefit of section 72A had been wrongly allowed to the assessee. In the order of reassessment, that was passed on 27¬12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with reference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. THE LD CIT APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- by disallowing

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

disallowance under section 14A of the Act is attracted in respect of such income. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced below for ready reference: 8. The ground No. 3 raised

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

3. It is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted penalty under section 271(1)(c) because ITAT in assessee’s own case has deleted the addition of Rs. 10 Crore made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A’s) order is as under:- “(i) The appellant has submitted

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

3) CIT\n(4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which deleted additions made on account of disallowance of deductions under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

3 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and is therefore eligible for depreciation. The appellant, however, argued that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act should apply, particularly highlighting the definition of "cost of acquisition" in Section 55(2) and relying on Section 49(1)(e). However, the court emphasized that Section 47 excludes

PARSSA RAM,MERTA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the Ld. AO disallowed the cash payment of Rs.20,51,007/- as claimed