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

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

disallowance made by the AO is here by sustained. Ground Nos. 2,3 and 4 of the appellant are dismissed.” 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The issue under consideration relates to source of cash deposits

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits in their bank accounts just before the date of loan to the assessee. In view of these facts, creditworthiness in respect of following credits stands unexplained. S. No. Name & Address of the Creditor Amount 1 Shri Kailash Chandra Laxkar, Kandroli Rs. 3,00,000/- 2 Shri Bhanwar Lal Lakhara, Nathdwara Rs. 3,00,000/- 3 Smt. Premlata Lodha

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

cash deposits in their bank accounts just before the date of loan to the assessee. In view of these facts, creditworthiness in respect of following credits stands unexplained. S. No. Name & Address of the Creditor Amount 1 Shri Kailash Chandra Laxkar, Kandroli Rs. 3,00,000/- 2 Shri Bhanwar Lal Lakhara, Nathdwara Rs. 3,00,000/- 3 Smt. Premlata Lodha

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

cash deposits, the disallowance u/s 69A may be sustained." 6.3 As regard the deposit of cash of Rs. 62,21,480/- is concerned

VIMLA DEVI BHATTAR,PHALODI vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevimla Devi Bhattar Ito, Ward E-51, Industrial Area Khichan Phalodi - 342301 (Phalodi) Jodhpur - 342301 Pan No. Amjpb 6652 J Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

deposited out of cash sales were not accounted for in the appellant’s books of account. In our view, when the purchases and corresponding sales were never doubted by the Ld. AO and accepted as genuine then sales can be held out of the books of accounts. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant assessee has made

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash deposit as income of appellant and should have restricted the addition to the commission income @ 7.5% earned by the appellant on such amount. 6.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash deposit as income of appellant and should have restricted the addition to the commission income @ 7.5% earned by the appellant on such amount. 6.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash deposit as income of appellant and should have restricted the addition to the commission income @ 7.5% earned by the appellant on such amount. 6.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash deposit as income of appellant and should have restricted the addition to the commission income @ 7.5% earned by the appellant on such amount. 6.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021

MR. NEERAJ PALIWAL,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

cash deposit as income of appellant and should have restricted the addition to the commission income @ 7.5% earned by the appellant on such amount. 6.0 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” 3 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021

VIJAY RATAN SONI,DIDWANA, NAGAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance to this extent. 6.1 As regards the addition under section 69A, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had a cash balance of Rs.41,52,840/- as on 08.11.2016, which was sufficient to cover the cash deposits

DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

disallowing unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- received in cash from Sh. Khem Chand Khatri (Individual). The Assessing Officer observed that Sh. Khem Chand Khatri died on 27.03.2017. In this regard the assessee had furnished all relevant details and documents. The AO mentioned that the assessee failed to do so and the explanation given by the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

deposit by holding that the cash credits are in the nature of receipts obtained from the business and since income of the assessee has been estimated by applying NP rate, no separate additions on the business receipts in cash is warranted. 5 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 4.1 On the issue relating to percentage

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

deposited immediately prior to the issue of cheque in favour of assessee, the source of money is 9 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT also established. There is no obligation on the part of AO to inquire into the source of source of cash credit. AO having examined all the details had not drawn any adverse inference against any loan

SMT. CHANDRA KANTA CHOUDHARY,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalsmt. Chandra Kanta Choudhary, Vs. I.T.O. 135, Main Sector, Ward-3, Bhilwara. Bhilwara. Pan No. Abxpc 9134 H Assessee By Shri Sunil Porwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri A.S. Yadav, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 10/01/2018 For The Ay. 2014-15, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Quashed The Order Passed By Ld Ao As The Order Passed By Ld Ao Without Jurisdiction & Also Contrary To The Guideline Issued By The Hon’Ble Cbdt. 2. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs. 89,39,398/- In Respect Of Long Term Capital Gain Particularly When Same Was Never Subject Matter Of Limited Scrutiny. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Made By Ld Ao Which He Could Not Have Made As The Jurisdiction Of The Ld Ao Was Limited.

cash deposits in the savings bank account. Thus, we find that the issue which was taken up by the A.O. while passing the order U/s 143(3) of the Act determining the long term capital gain was not within the scope of scrutiny assessment. 8. Once the issue taken up by the A.O. was beyond the scope of limited scrutiny

SHYAM SUNDAR INANI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

cash deposits during the demonetisation period; 2. Addition of Rs.30,25,000/- in respect of a bank account allegedly not belonging to the assessee; 3. Disallowance

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

cash deposits but finding that Ld. COIT had already granted registration u/s 254/ 12AA(1)(b) on 26.12.2018 (PB 49), assessed the income at nil vide order dated nil (PB 45-49). Accordingly, the department did not proceed further in any of these matters and they attained finality. All these admitted facts were available on record, when the AO passed

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." 5. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3.2 The grounds of the appeal taken by the revenue in appeal No. 169/Jodh/2022 reads as follows