RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

1 Where the case is Selected Reference to the TPO is mandatory for scrutiny either under CASS or compulsory manual selection on the basis of transfer pricing risk parameter 2 Where the case is selected Reference shall be made to the TPO only in the for scrutiny on non-transfer following three cases: pricing risk parameter a. Failure to report

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

price of the product/service of the business and the institution is following the same principal by selling property. Builders or real estate developers do the same activity which is being done by the assessee such as purchase and sale of land at commercial principles and rates, development of land and 42 | P a g e sale by auction or otherwise

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11 SCC 762 it is held that where there was no finding that there were any details supplied by the assessee, which were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false, it would not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As regards the above argument of the assessee, it is relevant to note that estimate

SECURE METERS LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

11 ITA 02/Jodh/2021 Secure Meters Ltd. Vs PCIT the provision of transfer pricing (sec 92 and related sections) is not applicable and the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this aspect. The assessee further submitted that the observation that gross total income of Rs. 778,404,660 is less than

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

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

11 Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust [A] price shoots up with the result that the market price prevailing on the date of the sale exceeds the agreed price at which the property is sold by more than 15 per cent of such agreed price. This is not at all an uncommon case in an economy of rising prices

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

11. Now, we take up the appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 in ITA No. 167,168 & 169/Jodh/2022. In all three appeals ground no 1 is general in nature and no specific arguments were raised. Therefore, on the said ground no 1 no adjudication is required. 12. Ground

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

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)

price of Rs 30/- per share while face value per share is Rs 10/- only. b) Company has obtained fair market value report as per requirement of Rule 11UA and submitted the copy of it before Ld AO and Ld CIT A ( A copy of which is also enclosed Paper Book Page No from to ) . c) Ld AO made addition

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

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

prices by reducing the amenities which were originally offered. They have also made complaint about the goodwill/reputation of the company if the project remains uncompleted. Considering the good will of the company and reputation of the relevant Directors in the Real Estate Market the position of continuation of project with new name has been decided by the company. However looking