LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations, income

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

addition made under section 68 was not sustainable. The head note is reproduced as below:- “ Section 68 of the Income

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.”

additional onus, the sum shall be treated as income of the company and added to its income”. From the plain reading of section, it is clear that section 68

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

income or made an investment\nwhich has not been recorded in his regular books of account or that his case is covered\nunder any of the deeming provisions contained in sections 68, 69, 69A to 69D of the\nAct. However, additions

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

addition made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act be deleted. In view of the above detailed factual and legal submission, it is humbly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) upholding the adjustment made by the CPC in the ROI u/s 143(1) of the Act, which is debatable and controversial, be directed

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

addition made by the CPC under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act be deleted. In view of the above detailed factual and legal submission, it is humbly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) upholding the adjustment made by the CPC in the ROI u/s 143(1) of the Act, which is debatable and controversial, be directed

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

addition for cash deposited out of it in the bank can be made,\nas held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT\n[1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bombay) (HC)\n"Section 68 of the Income

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

additions made by the AO under section 68 and charging tax under section 115BBE was infirm and perverse to the facts on record. The Tribunal found that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts and material available, including the assessee's explanation of the source of cash deposits as rental income

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

income i.e. foundation of belief was undisclosed source of investment (relevant provision of section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

income i.e. foundation of belief was undisclosed source of investment (relevant provision of section 69A of the Act) and finally made the addition in the order in respect of unexplained cash credits u/s 68

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

68,58,343/- Total Rs.97,05,59,476/- Net profit/total income Rs.16,45,86,794/- (-) 39 Varaha Infra Ltd. The net result of computation of net profit is loss. The result of computation of income made by Ld ITAT in respect of AY 2016-17 was also in loss as is evident from para

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) has rightly

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

additions made by the Assessing Officer under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act. The CIT(A) has rightly

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 for making the addition of Rs. 1602814/- to the total income. But the Section 68 in relevant to Cash

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

income, also adding commission expenses under section 69C. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, in its order, held that the share transactions were an accommodation entry and no real gain was earned, thus upholding the AO's additions.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["68

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

addition by invoking Section 68 of the Act of 1961 in arbitrary manner. 11. It is pertinent to mention that the Assessing Officer has even violated the SOP laid down by CBDT vide instruction No. 246/ 151/17- A-PAC-1 dated 10/01/2018 for the purpose of applying provisions of Section 68 of Income

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Income-Tax Department Through Its ... on 25 January, 2024 in W.P. (T) No. 1850/2022 dt. 25.01.2024 where it has been held that “ Furthermore, the recorded reason is also silent under which provision of the Act the additions are sought to be made i.e. whether Section 68

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Income-Tax Department\nThrough Its ... on 25 January, 2024 in W.P. (T) No. 1850/2022 dt. 25.01.2024 where it\nhas been held that “Furthermore, the recorded reason is also silent under which provision\nof the Act the additions are sought to be made i.e. whether Section 68