ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

Section 268A of the Income-tax Act 1961.” 7. From Clause 12 & 13 of the above said circular it is clear that these instructions are applicable to the pending appeals also and as per clause 13, there is clear cut instruction to the department to withdraw or not to press the appeals filed before the ITAT wherein tax effect

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus - Held, yes - Whether since Assessing Officer had drawn an adverse conclusion only on account of non-verifiability of sundry creditors but there being no dispute as regards purchases and trading results having been accepted, addition made under section 68 was not sustainable - Held, yes [Paras 15.2 & 15.3] [In favour of assessee]" In the case of Continental Carbon India

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). An investigation into the assessee's transactions showed purchase and sale of Safal Herbs Ltd. shares, resulting in a calculated capital gain which was not declared in the return.", "held": "The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the amount of Rs. 7,45,080/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and added

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 and there was backdating of the sales invoices to accommodate the demonetised/SBN currency notes cash with the appellant. 10. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), has erred in upholding the rejection of books of the appellant u/s 145(3) without bringing any contrary material on the record and also ignoring the fact that Ld A.O. has accepted

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

PURCHASE-FINISHED GOODS/STOCK IN TRADE INDIRECT INCOME 5993701.0 50937010 5551520 PURCHAS 384444911 8856011 201611435 0 61 61 TO GROSS PROFIL 16198537 10404657 BCLOSING STOCK CRUSHER COOOS 22707686 22797686. 12775431 412319067 220098329 TOTAL 412319067 220098329 10 67 SON' 4. The assessing officer in its Assessment order has stated that "Futther, looking to the business trend of the assessee there is abnormal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. PRAVEEN BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. KALAWATI DEVI, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SOHANRAJ BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR vs. VINESH KUMAR BALAR, PALI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual from Pali, Rajasthan. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Balar group of cases on 17.12.2015. Consequent

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

10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from the end of the month in which return is filed

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

10(2) Agri./Group-2/75 dt. 27.10.2014 of State of Rajasthan is taken as the base for the meaning of forest produce. Vide page 3-6 of the assessment order. 4. The ld. AO has stated that during the F.Y. 2010-11 assessee has made sale of forest produce “Phuwar” of Rs.8,51,806/-, which come in the meaning of forest

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.

10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AOgrossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 by holding the sales transactions made by assessee to M/s Milap Enterprises as unexplained. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in holding the sales made

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

purchases is to\nbe added not substantial part of transaction—When in subsequent assessment year in AY 2011-\n12, AO himself made addition only @ 10% of net profit in assessment order passed under section\n143(3); book profit shown by assessee @ 11.45% for year under consideration was reasonable\nand justified-Therefore, assessee also succeeded on merit-Assssee's appeal allowed

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

purchased flats from the company but\nthe transactions mentioned in this ledger accounts were not executed with the company.\nThis is again avoiding tactics even when the assessee company has been caught with the\nevidences of cash transaction. There is cash transaction as recorded on these documents\nwith the flat purchasers, which is proved from these documents. The assessee company