THAKUR BUILDCON (P) LTD. ,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAJSAMAND

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s ground stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.345/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Rajsamand बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Rajasthan-313 324. Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.346/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. बनाम/ Rajsamand Thakurgarh N.H. 8 Rajasthan-313 324. Sevali, Rajsamand Vs. Rajasthan-313 324. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment, the assessee was saddled with certain peak additions of Rs.216.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases and the same is the sole subject matter of cross- appeals before us since Ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee in the impugned order. 2. The effective

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

Section 69A of the Act representing bank deposits rejecting the explanations and evidence adduced by the appellant with support of judgement of higher judicial forums and he prayed that same may be deleted. 9. The Ld. Addl CIT (DR) on the other hand supported the impugned order. 10. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record, case

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

section 69A of the act and pleaded that the decision of the CIT (A) be upheld. 8. We have heard both the sides and given thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix discussed hereinabove. It is undisputed fact that there is not even a whisper of any defect, error or infirmity pointed out either by the AO or the Ld. Addl

MADAN LAL AND PARTY,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT, BIKANER

The appeals stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.234/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Madan Lal & Party Pr. Cit (Hanumangarh Town) Income Tax Office बनाम/ C/O Neeraj Chawla Ca Rani Bazaar, Bikaner Vs. 55, Adarsh Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan. Rajasthan-335 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacam-3229-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

section 263 and another is filing appeal before the H'ble Rajasthan High Court against the order of the H'ble ITAT Jodhpur. 2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including submissions made during assessment proceedings as well as during revisional proceedings. The judicial precedents as cited during the course of hearing have

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.

34,818/- on account of commission paid on alleged bogus sales u/s 69C of the Act. As stated in the above paras, the sales made by the appellant to M/s. Milap Enterprises are merely an entry as M/s. Milap Enterprises is only an entry provider. Such entries are obtained in the market for a commission at varying rates

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

bogus entities and never produced complete details and books of accounts before the AO while deleting addition of Rs.7,82,95,551/-. Ld. DR also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had also erred in accepting the verbal contention of the assessee that purchase of Rs.10,00,68,034/- were bifurcated in the name of seven parties to obtain loan

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

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

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in\nprinciple even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the\nfollowing judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even\nwhere the books of accounts were not rejected.\nCase referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

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

MAHENDRA KUMAR MUTHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalmahendra Kumar Mutha, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S R.B. Mutha & Co. Income Tax, B-11/A, Mandore Mandi, Circle-3, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Abmpm 02466 M Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

Section 145 can only be invoked where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or the completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where no method of accounting has been regularly employed by the assessee. In the present case there is no dispute as regards method of accounting. Therefore, there is nothing on record to arrive at contrary

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name\nand office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void.\n6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void.\nIt is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition and quash

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

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