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

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

price of Rs.1,58,67,077/- under 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

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

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

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

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

price of electricity that could be realized was less than the manufacturing cost. On the basis of this explanation, the AO took the view Sambhav Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-01, Jodhpur that the assessee does not have intention to carry on its business activity. Further, the AO held that the assessee has not used its fixed assets

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

price of electricity that could be realized was less than the manufacturing cost. On the basis of this explanation, the AO took the view Sambhav Energy Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-01, Jodhpur that the assessee does not have intention to carry on its business activity. Further, the AO held that the assessee has not used its fixed assets

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

26, reproduced at pages 11-13 of the order, he has explained the entire transaction and how Shri Kamal Agarwal, Director of M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. has contacted him for purchase of Gwar, where the same was stored and how it is delivered to the representative of the Company. All these evidences proves that the transaction were

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

price\napprox 64.70% of actual sale consideration in its books of accounts and profit\ncalculated on this only and there is unbilled sale is the approx 35.30% of the actual\n/projected sales which is not recorded in the books of account and not offered for\ntaxation.He also stated that unbilled sales/on money is received in cash and out of\nbooks

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

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

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances