M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act.Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions of the coordinate bench:- PR Packaging Service Vs. ACIT (2023) 221 DTR 1(Mum) The Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of the ITATin the said caseafter distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra), at paras

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form-10B FAQ (P.B. No. 17) which are available on department’s official website and can be visited through the given link : https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/form10bfaq#:~:text=Is%20it%20mandato ry%20to%20file,in%20the%20online%20mode%20only. Your honor will find that Question

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed and total income will be taxed @ MMR. This is really very unfortunate and unreasonable. (H) Please refer the attached Form-10B FAQ (P.B. No. 17) which are available on department’s official website and can be visited through the given link : https://www.incometax.gov.in/iec/foportal/help/form10bfaq#:~:text=Is%20it%20mandato ry%20to%20file,in%20the%20online%20mode%20only. Your honor will find that Question

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1) related to the commission income and expenses thereon and that the Assessee failed to submit any further response, accordingly, the AO disallowed the expenses claimed of Rs. 1,20,55,195

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

disallowance of expenses from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-, without appreciating the facts of the case that the AO specifically pointed out the defects in the bills and vouchers; 4) Deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from M/s. Inox Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. and interest paid of Rs.24,658/- thereupon, without appreciating the facts