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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act. Therefore, prayed to quash being bad in law. 5.2 On the contentions so raised the ld. AR of the assessee also filed the gist of the decision relied upon as reiterated here in below :- 2. CIT v/s Geeta Duggal; (2013) 257 CTR (Del) 208 Interpreted by Ld. CIT(Appeal) Gist of Remarks judgment Para

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 (w.e.f.\n1.4.1993).]\n(4)Where such discontinuance or dissolution takes place after any proceedings in respect\nof an assessment year have commenced, the proceedings may be continued against the\nperson referred to in sub-section (3) from the stage at which the proceedings stood at the\ntime of such discontinuance or dissolution, and all the provisions of this

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations

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

154\norder dt. 27.04.2018) made by the ld. AO on account of alleged underreporting sales, on\nmoney received on sales, on estimate basis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3)\nand without rejecting the books of accounts, without cross examination or inquiry from\npurchasers or Bharat Manwani, also erred in not considering the material and details in\ntheir true perspective

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

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

154 order dt. 27.04.2018) made by the ld. AO on account of alleged underreporting sales, on money received on sales, on estimate basis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3) and without rejecting the books of accounts, without cross examination or inquiry from purchasers or Bharat Manwani, also erred in not considering the material and details in their true perspective

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

154\norder dt. 27.04.2018) made by the ld. AO on account of alleged underreporting sales, on\nmoney received on sales, on estimate basis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3)\nand without rejecting the books of accounts, without cross examination or inquiry from\npurchasers or Bharat Manwani, also erred in not considering the material and details in\ntheir true perspective

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

154\norder dt. 27.04.2018) made by the ld. AO on account of alleged underreporting sales, on\nmoney received on sales, on estimate basis without invoking the provision of sec.145(3)\nand without rejecting the books of accounts, without cross examination or inquiry from\npurchasers or Bharat Manwani, also erred in not considering the material and details in\ntheir true perspective

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.

section 145 of the Act to reject the books of account to estimate trading result which is contrary to settled principles of law. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Gotan Lime Khanij Udyog reported in 256 ITR Page 243 held as under: - "That even if technically it is held that provisions

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 154 of the Act related rectification apparent from the record. We further find that the entire demand U/s 154 is beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, considering the above, we set aside the appeal order and the demand amount to Rs.4,68

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings w/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 5 DCIT-CIRCLE, BHILWARA VS SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA Further, the AO treated the remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,39,154

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

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

M/S. KUSHAL TRADERS,JODHPUR vs. ITO, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Kushal Traders, Vs. Ito, Ward – 3(3), Rajendra Jain, Adv Jodhpur, Shatrunjay Hari Singh Rajasthan. Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaefk7106R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit - Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Jodhpur Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 154 of the Act. 3] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by ld CIT (A) is bad in law and bad in facts. 4] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 68

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

section 80, business loss as on 31.03.2015, i.e. Rs.1,42,68,828/-cannot be carried forward. However it was submitted to the CIT(A) that petition for delay condonation in filing returns of income were submitted before the competent authorities and were under consideration till that time. 4. It is further to submit that order

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section BOP shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agriculture credit society or a primary agricultural and rural development bank. The appellant is not a primary agricultural credit I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 5 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 society or a primary Co-operative agricultural or a rural development