DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

56,615+68,12,269+13,06,74,650) made on account of difference in contract receipt shown in Form 26AS vis-à-vis receipts accounted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 15,00,000/- against disallowance

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act and 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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act and 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

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

section 68 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 68. 3.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 8,56

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

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

section he has made the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56

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

section he has\nmade the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section he has\nmade the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56

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

section he has\nmade the lump-sum addition either u/s 68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

section 56(2) is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal order. Accordingly, the ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 9. Ground No. 1 and 3 are general in nature. 10. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds which are as under: “1. The order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming

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.

68 of Rs. 1,11,60,612/- and further addition u/s 69C of Rs. 3,34,818/- to the return of income of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: “From the contents of the assessment

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34,

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/- 10.30 5,24,975/- 2016-17 6,34,

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The Ld.AO also calculated the commission amount to Rs. 6,55,255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.8,08,458/- related to 145(3) of the Act on account of increase of net profit from

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 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56

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 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 7 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 accommodation to its memberswho are all other co-operative societies and not members of the public. 15.14. Therefore, when the definition of “co-operative bank” inSection 56