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

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

transfer pricing study. In view of the aforenoted discussion and the ratio of the these precedents, we direct the AO/TPO to examine the correctness of the figures placed on record by the assessee in support of its contention that the case of Goldstone Teleservices Ltd. was wrongly included by it in the list of comparables, which is actually not comparable

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

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price mostly off-line through preferential allotment or off-line sale. The beneficiary (an individual) holds the shares for one year, the statutory period after which LTCG is exempt u/s 10(23) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the meantime, the operators rig the price of the stock and gradually rise

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

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

price list prefixed by the insurance agencies and the bills raised, the difference was transferred to discount. We agree with the findings given by the CIT(A) that the assessee should be left to the discretion of the expenses required to be incurred by him in carrying on the business. The contention of the assessee is also supported

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

price list prefixed by the insurance agencies and the bills raised, the difference was transferred to discount. We agree with the findings given by the CIT(A) that the assessee should be left to the discretion of the expenses required to be incurred by him in carrying on the business. The contention of the assessee is also supported

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

price list prefixed by the insurance agencies and the bills raised, the difference was transferred to discount. We agree with the findings given by the CIT(A) that the assessee should be left to the discretion of the expenses required to be incurred by him in carrying on the business. The contention of the assessee is also supported

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

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)

19 Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the transfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement may be taken for the purposes of this sub-clause: Provided further that the said proviso shall

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

transferred by Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2012, out of which it paid ₹ 75 Lakhs to the appellant against the transaction which it had entered with the appellant, it cannot be assumed that the source of this amount is the amount deposited in the bank account of Jagdamba Trading, more particularly when there

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

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

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.”

19. Considering the period being covered by an extension and considering the ground for condonation of delay we admit the appeal to be decided on merits. 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2017-18 electronically on 16.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case

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

19. In any case of the matter, in our considered opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd (supra) and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashoka Buildcon vs. CIT (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, a reading of the original

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized

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

19,547/- Neemuch - 82,81,566/- Ujjain - 22,81,646/- Total 5,59,63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized