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

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 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

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

34 | P a g e limited scrutiny and therefore, the CIT cannot invoke S. 263 on the issues, which were not made basis for selection of the case. Obviously for the reason that the AO is not legally entitled to enter into those issues, not selected for first scrutiny. Here also the scope inquiry of section 263 is limited

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

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

10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section\n80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such\nreport along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of\nthe assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of \"CIT v. Punjab Financial\nCorporation\" reported

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section\n80 HHC of the income tax act, it was held that if the assessee failed to file such\nreport along with the return and filed it subsequently but before completion of\nthe assessment, it would not be fatal. In the case of \"CIT v. Punjab Financial\nCorporation\" reported

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

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

34,005/-) and sale of trees (Rs. 1,04,26.739/-) is shown at Rs. 2,73,93,10,472/- and other income which comprises of other non-operating income and excluding other claims (unilateral and disputed claim on which no TDS was neither applicable nor made and hence not liable to be declared in 26AS) is shown

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.

transferred out to certain other bank accounts belonging to M/s. Lakhpat Trading and Industry Pvt. Ltd. The submissions made are duly considered and the same were sent to the AO calling for Remand Report. The AO submitted the Remand Report vide letter dated 28.02.2024. The copy of Remand Report was forwarded to the appellant for itscomments and the comments

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

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

10% of the total revenue as per agreements of sale or any legally enforceable documents are realized at reporting date in respect of each of the contract. (f) When the state of completion of the project reaches 25% or more (where construction of development cost is incurred 25% or more of the total cost apart from cost of land

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.”

transfer of immovable properties to FSPL (Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd.) by evading the Stamp Duty on circle rate and valuation on circle rate. Hence, necessary verification and enquiry may be done by the AO on this aspect and accordingly necessary action may be taken as per the I.T. Act. Further, no explanation has been offered as to what happened

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

transfer of land, simultaneously, action for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income was initiated by issue of notice u/s 271(1)(c) on dated 18-09-2018. 1.3 Since, the appellant has not preferred an appeal against said enhancement order of CIT (A) before the Hon’ble ITAT i.e. First appellate Authority

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

34,291/- made on account of discount allowed on this bills of patients for treatment without appreciating the fact that this is the year in which direct evidences of discount amount on the bills were found and seized during search thereafter the assessee change his accounting practice by showing gross receipts including the so called discount and claimed discount

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

34,291/- made on account of discount allowed on this bills of patients for treatment without appreciating the fact that this is the year in which direct evidences of discount amount on the bills were found and seized during search thereafter the assessee change his accounting practice by showing gross receipts including the so called discount and claimed discount

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

34,291/- made on account of discount allowed on this bills of patients for treatment without appreciating the fact that this is the year in which direct evidences of discount amount on the bills were found and seized during search thereafter the assessee change his accounting practice by showing gross receipts including the so called discount and claimed discount

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

34,291/- made on account of discount allowed on this bills of patients for treatment without appreciating the fact that this is the year in which direct evidences of discount amount on the bills were found and seized during search thereafter the assessee change his accounting practice by showing gross receipts including the so called discount and claimed discount