SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

purchased the house and cash withdrawn are used for same which is not only incorrect but also contrary to facts on record. There was no distant connection 8 Smt. Krishna Agarwal vs. ITO with the material on record and observation made by him in the order. In other words the addition so made in a incorrect and false way putting

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

bogus (iii) CIT vs. H.S. Builders 78 DTR 169 (Rajasthan High Court) Deposit of cash in the account of creditors just before giving loan to the assessee would not lead to the conclusion that the money was deposited by the assessee. (iv) Aravali Trading Co. V/s ITO 25-1-2007 (2008) 8 DTR (Raj) 199 Once the existence

PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

bogus sales on human probability test as regard to back dating of cash sales during demonetization period without disproving accounted purchases, sales and available cash in audited books of the assessee to substantiate the addition on account of SBC currency cash deposit

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus. The assessee has inflated his purchases to suppress his income by Rs. 1,99,74,893/-. 3.2 The Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry from the bank statement and found that the assessee had made payment against alleged purchase from M/s Vinayak Enterprises through check/RTGS, Punjab National Bank, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur and the same amount was deposited in the bank

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAOTA C ROAD vs. HRDK BULLION AND REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

bogus sales on human probability test as regard to an abnormal increase in cash sales during demonetization period without disproving accounted purchases, sales and available cash in audited books and VAT Returns of the assessee to substantiate the cash deposit

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

bogus and un-explained money by AO without giving logical or rational reason for such observation. In our view, when the AO had accepted the sales and purchases declared by the appellant in its books of account as 10 Asst. Year: 2017-18 genuine then the payment received through cash on sale of tractors etc. are to be accepted

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Bogus. The AO has arbitrarily without making any inquiry has doubted the identity of the Dubai Bank accounts & declared as ‘Undisclosed’. Also, the Ld. AO without assigning any strong reason or document evidence the audited financial statements of Aptus Trading DMCC and simply declared the funds provided by Mr. Arpit to Mr. Suresh as not explained. 9. It would

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

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

deposits in the bank account during the Demonetization Period, Unsecured Loan & capital introduced. Hence, in our view lump-sum addition cannot be made under these accounts. The AO must have referred the specific amount with specific details and documents which he has not provided and as to what basis lump sum addition has been made and also failed to mention

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

deposits in the bank account during the Demonetization Period, Unsecured Loan & capital introduced. Hence, in our view lump-sum addition cannot be made under these accounts. The AO must have referred the specific amount with specific details and documents which he has not provided and as to what basis lump sum addition has been made and also failed to mention

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

deposits in the bank account during the Demonetization Period, Unsecured Loan & capital introduced. Hence, in our view lump-sum addition cannot be made under these accounts. The AO must have referred the specific amount with specific details and documents which he has not provided and as to what basis lump sum addition has been made and also failed to mention

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.

purchasers are responsible for arranging the pickup of goods from factorypremises. b) No details of transporters are available by the appellant. c) It is seen that there is a deposit of cash in bank account of Shri Rahul Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Milap Enterprises and subsequently this amount is invariably transferred to the appellant. As stated earlier M/s. Milap Enterprises

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

cash amount was deposited in the bank account of the creditor before transfer to the assessee. Once such initial burden was successfully discharged by the assessee, the onus shifted to the revenue to prove that the subjected credits did not belong to the creditors but the said amount belong to the assessee, however, the AO completely failed to discharge

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period

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

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period

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

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash deposit during demonetization period for an amount of Rs. 1,84,36,500/-. The fact related to this addition emerges from the assessment order is that in the assessment proceedings the ld. AO noted that the assessee company has deposited cash of Rs. 1,84,36,500/- in Axis Bank in A/C No. 912020060853932 during the period