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

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

cash is again re-deposited to savings bank account cannot be disbelieved on mere presumption and surmises. That being the case, since assessee’s contention has not been proved to be false through proper reasoning and supporting material, the addition made under section 68

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

cash credit under section 68 of the act. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is deriving income from running a dairy. During the year under consideration, the Assessing I.T.A. No.755/Jodh/2025 & SA No. 03/Jodh/2025 (In ITA No. 755/Jodh/2025) Assessment Year 2017-18 3 Officer (in short “the AO”) noticed deposits

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.”

section 68 of the Act. We have reproduced relevant part of Para 7 of the judgement of Tribunal: 7......It has also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of the creditors and the assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposited cash in their bank accounts out of available cash balance and out of income earned by them during the year. However, on going through the balance sheets for the assessment year 2009-10 and as per return of income for the assessment year 2010- 11, filed by them during the course of their statements, it was noticed that they

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

deposited cash in their bank accounts out of available cash balance and out of income earned by them during the year. However, on going through the balance sheets for the assessment year 2009-10 and as per return of income for the assessment year 2010- 11, filed by them during the course of their statements, it was noticed that they

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) :

deposited Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- on 02.06.2011 and 03.06.2011 into the bank account of the assessee. To substantiate this claim, the appellant produced affidavit of Shri Raju Bhai who had been assessed to tax regularly. The appellant had established the identity of creditor, his creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions within the meaning of section 68

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 68 of the Act as applied by ld AO. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,59,789/- in respect of cash deposited

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

deposition of Rs 1,73,04,000/- during the period of demonetization. (2) That as the business of assessee is selling of petroleum and diesel, therefore the sale of assessee is largely cash sale. (3) That the assessee had duly accounted for the cash sale in its books of accounts and considered the said sale in its trading account

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

68 of the Act and charge tax rates under section 115 BBE of the act\nwithout appreciating the material evidence filed during the course of the\nassessment proceedings before the assessing officer.\n8\nITA No. 43/Jodh/2024\n(Assessment Year 2017-18)\n10. From the record it is evident that the assessee had source of cash deposit

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained by assessee during the period F.Y\n2008-09, had issued notice under section 148 which culminated into assessment framed\ndetermining total income at Rs. 2,21,60,400/- as against Rs.12,45,390/- originally returned by\nassessee. Assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was served upon assessee and ex-\nparte assessment

SUSHIL KUMAR JHABAK,BIKANER vs. NFAC, DELHI / ITO,WARD-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

section 69A. Addition u/s 69A can be made only when such money is not recoded in the books of accounts and not offered satisfactory reply. When the assessing officer has not doubted the genuineness of purchases or opening stock, and has not rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3), then the assessing officer cannot deny the source of cash

DWARKA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposits in bank are duly recorded and supported from evidences in right perspective and judicious manner. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the provision of section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5) The reason for issuance of notice u/s 148 was the cash deposit

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief as per this

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Deposit a/c already existing in Debit side. Advance for 3,49,17,898 1. Details was submitted with reply Dumper, Vehicle dated 17.06.2016. (WIPL) 2. Copy of Ledger account from M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 in support of Assets sold is enclosed. 3. As per which it is clear that Advances

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

section the addition has been made. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds presuming but not admitting that the addition on account of cash deposits has been made by the AO u/s 68

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

section the addition has been made. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds presuming but not admitting that the addition on account of cash deposits has been made by the AO u/s 68

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

section the addition has been made. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds presuming but not admitting that the addition on account of cash deposits has been made by the AO u/s 68