ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed related to payment of PF and ESI as per provision of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal with the ground that assessee is eligible for depreciation amount of I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rs.3,69,595/-. As per the assessee, in the tax audit report and in computation wrongly claimed

RAMDEO PAN BHANDAR,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by the asessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteram Deo Pan Bhandar Vs. Acit, Circle -1, Kem Road, Bikaner, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr3308M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance of 55,130/- Rs. 1,83,771/- on account of discount expenses. Ramdeo Pan Bhandar, Udaipur. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the excess cash found during survey amounting to Rs. 4,65,346/- cannot be treated as unexplained income u/s 69A for tax purposes

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

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.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

section 68 of the Act. 4. Agricultural income:-Rs. 44,00,000/- : The appellant claimed that the cash transaction of Rs.13,50,000/- on 21.05.2011, Rs.5,50,000/- on 03.09.2011, 4,00,000/- on 24.10.2011, 9,00,000/- on 25.10.2011, 2,00,000/- on 09.11.2011 and 6,00,000/- on 12.11.2011 was his agricultural receipts. Before me, the appellant furnished

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

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

270 ITR 597 (Raj.) also accepted the contention to take into account, the peak credit. When any amount is paid, later withdrawn from the books, would be available for recycling and rotation, unless otherwise established as invested elsewhere by the Revenue. We hold the assessee was entitled to the benefit of peak credit which ought to have been allowed instead