P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 92E at all or has not disclosed the said transactions in the Accountant’s report filed; (b)where there has been a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal; and (c)where search and seizure or survey operations

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

20 Lakh, was made hence no further addition was permissible u/s 147. The same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court holding as under: "14. For exercise of power under s. 263, it is mandatory that the order passed by the AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case

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)

section 153A of the Act and also contended that the additions were wrongly made in hands of the Assessee merely on the basis of bank accounts or information in 10 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur relating to accounts, wherein she is just authorized signatory and entire asset/income belong to BWR Trust, which is family trust formed

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10 and @ premium of Rs 20 per share at total consideration of Rs 51,00,000/- including premium received for Rs 34,00,000/- during the year. As there was no business activity during the year as per submission filed, assessee was asked to justify the premium as per section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and rule 11UA

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

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

transfer from the old accounts. As per the ld. AR, the background of agriculture land at khara bypass 0.83 hectare and land at khara 3.56 hectare has already been deliberated upon in length at point no. 2 of this letter. Ld. AR submitted that these two are basically offset 18 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT accounts which cot debited

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

transfer entry from Individual Balance Sheet to the consolidated/Merged Balance Sheet of the Proprietorship concern M/s Yogesh Enterprises. All the bank statements of the assessee are on record and in case there had been any receipt of unsecured loan from Virendra Agarwal then definitely it would have been shown therein. Our attention was also drawn to the statement containing

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

prices are quoted yielding lower profits. Moreover, cost of construction and other expanses keep on increasing Various contracts were required to be completed within strict time frame failing which contractual penalties were also too high. Besides these factors, the assessee-company took some of the projects on sub-contract basis on low profit margins." 3.2 On perusal of the audited

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

10,75,000/- Profit Rs. 21,45,000/-" 12. During the course of hearing of appeal the A.R of the appellant agreed to the estimation of business profit on sale of land at Badl by the CIT(A) at Rs 21,45,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the AO to make an addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

10. The CIT(A) has extensively dealt with this issue in his order and considered the various contention raised by the AO and also the submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The summary of his findings given in the order for A.Y. 2016-17 are reproduced as under: "The submissions of the appellant has been carefully perused

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

20,000/- as on 31.03.2016 and during the year under consideration, issued 1,00,000 nos. of shares at face value of Rs. 10/- per share and also at premium of Rs. 40/- per share. Thus, the assessee, during the year under consideration, received share capital of Rs. 10,00,000/- and share premium of Rs.40,00,000/-. To verify

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.

20. That petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any addition or alternative ground at or before the time of hearing. 21. The petitioner prays for justice and relief. 3. In Ground No. 1 to 6, the assessee has challenged the rejection of books of accounts and applications of provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act in applying profit

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

20,000/- upon which there was no deduction of any TDS and therefore, these payments of Rs. 6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during the year under consideration. (v) For the sake of clarity, Section 40(a)(in) of the Act is reproduced as under: “Section