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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore

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

41,69,103/- instead of the correct returned income of Rs. 14,09,89,472/-. This error led to an apparent addition of Rs. 2,31 to the assessed income. It states that the return of income was filed correctly, declaring the total income of Rs. 14,09,89,472/-. The error in assessing the income occurred because

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

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

b) of the I.T. Act 1961. As such, cash deposited of Rs. 16,79,12,657/ -in bank accounts, earned interest income of Rs. 20,07,054/ - and purchase of immovable property to the tune of Rs. 17,76,51,821/ - has remained unexplained. In view of the above, it is clear that total amount

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

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tar, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

b) of\nexplanation 2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary\nsanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner\nof Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice\nunder section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the\nassessee through ITBA

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

b) of sub-section (4) of that section to exercise or perform all or any of the powers and functions conferred on, or assigned to, an Assessing Officer under this Act. On perusal of above section, it may be observed that the term 'Assessing Officer' does not include the CIT(A). So, the obvious question arises, whether in the first

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

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

41,69,680/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction of the CIT(A), reduced the amount of addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- from