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 does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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 company

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is bad in law and, void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled as the same is based

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 12.12.2019 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue vide impugned Order u/s 263 dated 30.03.2022 holding that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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

35,79,859/- disallowed by the AO is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal No. 4 is accordingly treated as dismissed.” 7.2 On the issue the bench noted that the year under consideration is completed assessment. An addition is made on the expenditure Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT which are de hors the seized material and part of regular

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) of the Act. While holding so ld. AO also noted that in the immediately preceding i.e. A. Y. 2016-17 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and on account of 52 Varaha Infra Ltd. assessee's failure to prove the authenticity of books of account, book results were rejected u/s 145(3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied

P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

35(1)(iv) of the IT Act is an approved research and development unit. (d) To examine deduction u/s 80IA on power generation unit though the full deduction was disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order. The direction in this regard are vague and non specific. (e) To make to the total income and/ or to the book

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “7.1 In the case of appellant, by merely submitting confirmations

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)

3 below Section 80G, excluded only those entities whose purpose wholly or substantially wasreligious in nature. The entities having mixed charitable and religious purpose were not excluded. We also submit that the Assessing Officer’s interpretation that the registration under Section 80G was available only to institutions existing solely for charitable purpose was misplaced. Please refer to Section