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

credited by RTGS from Shri Harendra Choudhary. Again there is no cash deposit in the bank account of the depositor immediately before transferring amount to the account of the assessee. It is further submitted that in addition to money transferred to the account of the assessee, there are multiple transactions which strengthens the financial position of the depositor. These transactions

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Cash credits (Sundry creditors) - Assessment year 2005-06-Assessee company was carrying on business of export of finished M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. leather and manufacture of shoe uppers and shoes- While framing assessment, Assessing Officer required assessee to furnish complete list of persons from whom raw hides of goats were purchased and from

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

credit. In such a scenario why assessee will need additional cash in hand balance. Thus it is out of common understanding that assessee kept on accumulating cash balance by withdrawing another 27lacs in the month of August, 54 lacs in the month of September and Rs18,00,000/- in October 2016. 3. Even if the claim of the assessee

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

credited in the cash book. There is no unexplained money within the meaning\nof Sec.69A. When the cash is sourced out of recorded debtors, the provisions\nof Sec.69A could not be invoked. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the\nimpugned addition of Rs.21.50 Crores is not sustainable in law. Therefore, we delete the\nsame and allow the corresponding

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

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

Unexplained Money and be taxed u/s 69A of the I.T. Act under the head Income from Other Sources and accordingly assessee was requested to reply the same online by 04.12.2019.” 6. It was submitted that the allegation of the AO that the assessee had already made the investment in property amounting to Rs. 1,27,20,200/- out of cash

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

unexplained expenditure in cash of Rs. 9,35,225/- towards commission for obtaining such bogus long term capital gain, which the AO has added u/s 69C is also confirmed for the same reasons. Addition of Rs. 8,08,458/- to cover up and for certain identified defects in the books of account admitted in course of assessment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

unexplained cash credit, is not\njustified. Pertinently, to establish the factum of sales made to the buyer-debtors,\ncopies of each and every sales bill, showing quantity, rate, transporters name,\ntransport mode, vehicle no., date and amount etc., were submitted to the AO.\nAll the invoices raised were also bearing T/N of the buyer-debtors, which has\nfully established that

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

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 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

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

purchase under new scheme/project with amended\nterms & conditions.\nB.4 In fact, unfortunately on account of adverse financial stringencies Shri Bharat\nManwani could not arrange the booking amount of first installment from the related\nbuyers. Not only this the financial position of Shri Bharat Manwani becomes critical in\nhis personal business activities and due to this reason in the market rumors

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.

unexplained. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in holding the sales made by the assessee to M/s Milap Enterprises as bogus without considering the leg al and credible documentary evidences furnished by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 12. That on the facts and in the circumstances

M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

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.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

cash. 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT (A)-2, Jodhpur was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.82,49,484/- made on account of not showing commission income on sub-let work, ignoring the fact that no commission income on sub-let work was shown by the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER vs. M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

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.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

cash. 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT (A)-2, Jodhpur was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.82,49,484/- made on account of not showing commission income on sub-let work, ignoring the fact that no commission income on sub-let work was shown by the assessee

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident- (i) has furnished his return of income under Section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (ii) has paid the tax due on the income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident- (i) has furnished his return of income under Section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (ii) has paid the tax due on the income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident- (i) has furnished his return of income under Section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (ii) has paid the tax due on the income