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

forward of unabsorbed loss of Rs. 5,52,17,083/- (b/f loss of AY 2016-17 Rs.3,17,161 + current year's loss of Rs.5,48,99,877/-). The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated 17.08.2018 was digitally served on the registered email of the assessee- company through ITBA module by the DCIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

68 is deleted.” As we have already discussed this issue in detail in foregoing paragraphs of this order, therefore, in that eventuality, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld. CIT(A) qua this issue. Accordingly, we uphold the same. 15. Ground No. 4 of the appeal relates to challenging the order

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

loss account) and on the other hand\namounts received from above parties has also been added u/s. 68 of the Act.\"\nShree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. V. DCIT vide (ITA No. 1166/AHD/2014) -\nWe also note that the provisions of section 68 cannot be applied in relation to the\nsales receipt shown by the assessee in its books of accounts

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

carried out at the residential and business\npremises of the assessee group on 26/08/2015 to 28/08/2015 u/s 132 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961. During search, as per record some documents were found and\nseized. The assessee filed its original return of income u/s 139 on 25.09.2013\ndeclaring total income of Rs.7,70,040/-. Consequent upon search, Notice u/s 153A25

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

carried out at the residential and business\npremises of the assessee group on 26/08/2015 to 28/08/2015 u/s 132 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961. During search, as per record some documents were found and\nseized. The assessee filed its original return of income u/s 139 on 25.09.2013\ndeclaring total income of Rs.7,70,040/-. Consequent upon search, Notice u/s 153A

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.

forwarded to the appellant for itscomments and the comments of the appellant are received vide letter dated 06.03.2025. The AO, in the Remand Report, has discussed in detail the basis of additions made under this head in para 7 on page 5 of the Remand Report and has finally come to a conclusion that the AO has made just

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

loss was inserted by Finance Act, 2016 and in this regard, it was held in the case of CIT (Mumbai) V Essar Technology Limited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that the wings of the government has been vested with plenary power to decorate whether an amendment to operate prospectively or retrospectively. Further in general observation the legislature

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

68 of the Act. Apart from making sweeping statements, which have been found to be factually erroneous, no objective material has been brought on record by the Ld. Pr. CIT to implicate the assessee or the AO per se of being guilty of non-enquiry. We further find that when confronted with the reasons

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 69A cannot be invoked. The reasoning given by the AO and Ld. CIT (A) is vague and based on surmise as to what a prudent person should have done. Once assessee has explained that being of senior citizen they have maintained such liquidity of cash out of their own disclosed income with them for certain contingencies, then without

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

carried out in income tax under Finance Act, 2021, even\nbefore proceedings under Section 148 could be drawn, law requires an order to be passed under\nSection 148A by conducting an enquiry in manner provided under Section 148A and satisfaction\nto be arrived at on basis of material available on record that income chargeable to tax has\nescaped assessment

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

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

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

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

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

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

carried out at the residence/business premises at Udai Niwas, Bhanwar Mata Road, Chhoti Sadari, certain incriminating documents Annexure A-1, Page No. 1-63, Party No. 3 were found and seized. It contains agreement of transfer of ownership of land. As per aforesaid agreement Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana P/o M/s Anjana Construction has sold

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss account, balance sheet as per Rule 18BBB was maintained by the assessee for which separate Form 10CCB was required to be filed. The assessee has filed a single Form 10CCB for its entire business. Apart from this, in column No. 13 of the Form l0CCB, the assessee has claimed to have attached agreement as required under Rule 18BBB

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

loss, claim for disallowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting aside the order; the lTAT also considered and decided in fovouroftheassessee on the merits

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

carried out during the year. The appellant provided its bank statement to prove its point that no payment has been made to Manisha Parmar, as alleged. 2.3 The AO completed the assessment making an addition of Rs.75,00,000/- u/s 69. The CIT(A), before whom all the evidence which was filed before the AO as well, was again furnished