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

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.

purchase consideration to the seller Madan Mohan Gupta a sum of Rs.2,71,000/-. c. That the entire fabric being woven against the appellant for treating the alleged payment of on money go around the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. It is submitted that after thought statement carry no weight under the law and they are against the spirit

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

bogus debtors/sales without bringing evidence\non record, when assessee had filed copy of ledger accounts of the debtors, Sales &\nPurchase details like Sales Register, Purchase Register, Sales and Purchase\nInvoices and the AO had not made any further enquiry.\n3. When cash deposited is reflected as realization from debtors in books of accounts\nand if the AO has not rejected

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

money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of\nthe Act\".\n4. In first appeal assessee has filed detailed WS(PB32-38) and documents admittedly, however\nthe ld. CIT(A) without considering and without deciding our legal grounds of appeal and legal\nposition, validity of proceedings\n5. In first appeal assessee challenged the legality, validity andproceeding u/s 147/148 and also\nchallenged the assessment

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

money as tax exempt bogus capital gains.\n37.\nThe SEBI had recently imposed penalty on M/s. Safal Herbs Ltd. (formerly\nParikh Herbal Ltd.) for certain violations. In view of the above discussion, I am of the\nconsidered view that share transactions leading toLTCG by the appellant are sham\ntransaction entered into for the purpose of evading tax. Accordingly

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, UDAIPUE

money from about 41 (forty one flats)\npersons against 41 flats. As per system of the company the management has decided to\nbook the flats only after receipt of booking amount from the customers and not on\nreceiving token money by the agents or by Shri Bharat Manwani. The Bharat Manwani\nhas not collected booking amount from most

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

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)

purchase is to sale the plots and earn profit than the profit on sale of the same is chargeable to tax under the head income from business. In this case the intention of the assessee is clear from the fact that the same is regulary shown under the head fixed assets. The various cases relied upon by the assessee also

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus sundry creditors. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) vide his order after discussing the matter in great details allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the ld. D/R supported the order

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

purchase By Commission Wheat Journal 44 1,00,42,400.00 flour sales To Commission Journal 45 50,212.00 Sanjay Rathi HUF Journal 46 9,85,596 By MUDAT Journal 48 1,83,808.00 1,02,26,208.00 1,02,26,208.00 The whole scenarios show that the fund repaid by the assessee to the above concerns was again received back

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained seized document relates and no additions can be made merely on the basis of estimations, presumption, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, in absence of any evidence related to the X-rays done pertaining to the year under consideration, the AO is not found justified in notionally computing the X- ray receipts considering to be suppressed receipts. Accordingly, respectfully following

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained seized document relates and no additions can be made merely on the basis of estimations, presumption, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, in absence of any evidence related to the X-rays done pertaining to the year under consideration, the AO is not found justified in notionally computing the X- ray receipts considering to be suppressed receipts. Accordingly, respectfully following

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

unexplained seized document relates and no additions can be made merely on the basis of estimations, presumption, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, in absence of any evidence related to the X-rays done pertaining to the year under consideration, the AO is not found justified in notionally computing the X- ray receipts considering to be suppressed receipts. Accordingly, respectfully following

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

unexplained seized document relates and no additions can be made merely on the basis of estimations, presumption, conjectures and surmises. Therefore, in absence of any evidence related to the X-rays done pertaining to the year under consideration, the AO is not found justified in notionally computing the X- ray receipts considering to be suppressed receipts. Accordingly, respectfully following