SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,70,000/- is hereby deleted.” But the ld. CIT(A), contrary to this also enhanced the assessment by an amount of Rs. 21,45,000/- and the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is also relevant to reproduced. The same is as under : “3.5.11 Now I pick up the thread left at para 3.5.5 above while deleting

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

1) of s. 148; (iii) the AO may assess or reassess such income, which he has reason to believe, has escaped assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section; and (iv) though the notice under s. 148(2) does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

39,988/-, the AO has held that the assessee has suppressed the gross receipts for the AY 2012-13 by Rs. 1,67,54,824/- and has therefore, made the aforesaid addition to the total income of the appellant. (vi) It is observed that the document has been seized from the premises of the appellant and therefore it is presumed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

39,86,176/- declaring GP rate of 18.90% which is better than the G.P. rate of 15.22% declared for the just preceding year but lesser than the G.P. rate of 19.90% declared for the Assessment year 2008-09. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish necessary details and to produce complete books of accounts

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

39,86,176/- declaring GP rate of 18.90% which is better than the G.P. rate of 15.22% declared for the just preceding year but lesser than the G.P. rate of 19.90% declared for the Assessment year 2008-09. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish necessary details and to produce complete books of accounts

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 148 of the Act and in the absence of a notice to the assessee against whom reassessment order is proposed, the said order is held to be invalid.” 20 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer q] Further also rely on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Charan Singh (P.B. Page 217 to 224). In light

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) 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 Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

39,49,500/- u/s 69A on account of un-explained cash deposits during demonetization period. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assessee by observing as under: 1. The assessing officer has stated in page no 2 of the assessment order that as per cash

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

In the result, stands ALLOWED

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18, which was subsequent to the completion of assessment for AY 2018-19, the appellant rightly submitted that these loans have been taken into cognizance for making assessment for AY 2018-19. The then AO, in his wisdom, chose not to make any addition on account of these loose papers

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee. 37. The Ld. AR further