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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

disallowance of interest expenses to the tune of Rs.5,32,766/- claimed on loans, which were considered as non-genuine in the earlier years. 9. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the AO has considered 13 items of cash credits as treated as unexplained

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

unexplained cash credits. (iii) In the assessment order there is no finding that any books of accounts were maintained by the assessee and that the alleged amount was found credited in the books of accounts or even in the bank account. As per section 68 : “where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

unexplained cash credit. 10. Next, let us examine the applicability of section 41(1) in respect of sundry creditors of Rs. 25,91,01,791/-. The appellant referred to the provisions of sec., 41(1) and relied on various judicial decision to argue that where the liabilities are outstanding for earlier years and had not been written back, there

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) :

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and added the same to the income of the assessee. 3.5 The assessee had debited certain expenses under the head printing & stationery, office expenses, vehicle expenses, repair maintenance & telephone expenses etc. Since the expenditure was not fully verifiable, Ld. AO estimated an addition of Rs.1.50 Lacs against the same. 3.6 It also transpired that

CHANCHAL JAIN ,UDAIUR vs. ITO, WARD-1 (2), , UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Chanchal Jain Vs Ito 14B, Kalkaji Goraji, New Sadri Ward-1(2) Colony, Udaipur (Raj) Udaipur (Raj) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aibpj 9957 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Dev, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2023 16 /01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

disallowed the above said amount of Rs.57,61,675/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. In the appellate

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Hence, the AO also disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.5,83,397/- claimed

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) :

credit, in such circumstances, may not be available," - 4.2.2. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of R.K. Dave v/s I.T.O. reported in 94 TTJ 19 held as under:- "The assessee had placed cash flow statement before the authorities below. It is also not in dispute that the assessee had withdrawn an amount

SMT. RENU GURJAR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

credit for cash received from husband has to be given. 5.3.7 For the rest of cash Rs. 6,00,000/- I see no reason for accepting the availability of cash only on the basis of general explanations. Accordingly the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” 5. The assessee being not satisfied with

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

unexplained cash 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

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:-

unexplained cash credits and added to the total income of the Assessee under Section 68 read with Section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act under the head of income from other sources besides interest expenses claim of Rs. 16,82,142/- on the aforesaid unsecured loans. 20. We have heard both the sides and perusal of record

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

unexplained 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

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

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

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