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 which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987, which came into effect from 1st April, 1988, the letters numbered as clause (a), or cl. (c) or cl. (d) or cl. (e) or cl. (f) are omitted from the above proviso and therefore deduction towards the employees contribution paid can be claimed by the assessee. The Explanation to clause

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them as per their

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them as per their

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section under which this addition was made, however, considering the nature of this addition, it could be either u/s. 41(1) of the Act or u/s. 68 of the Act. From the facts and details as furnished by the appellant, it is seen that total sundry creditors consisted of following items:- M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project

DCIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN GOYAL, FARIDABAD.

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotedcit Vs. Shri Brij Bhushan Circle, Pali., Goyal, Jodhpur. House No. 331, Sector Rajasthan. 16A, Faridabad, Haryana.-121002 Pan/Gir No. : Aawpg8405D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 80 IC of the Act On perusal of the Financial statements, the Assessing Officer(AO) found that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IC(2) of the Act of Rs. 1,68

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

deduction 69A of the Act, to the addition made by him on account of agricultural income not found genuine and thus subjecting the addition to correct rate of tax u/s 115BBE. 2. The assesse has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT erred in declaring the assessment

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

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

deduction / exemption under the relevant beneficial provisions, the same should not be denied. We must always keep the object of the Act in view while interpreting the section. The legislative intention must be the foundation of the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021) 126 taxmann.com 68

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

deducted wrongly under the wrong section. It should have been under section 194A rather than 1941(b) which relates to Rental Income. The rate of TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that

SHRI SUMIT GAHLOT,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad176/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) Vs Shri Sumit Gahlot, The Ito House No.22, Ganesh Ward-1, Colony, Gulpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bqapg9853L

section 68 of the Act. Thus we delete the addition of Rs.28,964/- made for unexplained sundry creditors and allow Ground No. 4. 3.6 As regards the addition for opening capital balance of Rs.67,463/-, we fail to find any merit in the action of the AO because the minimum amount not taxable for the preceding years

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

68 of Rs. 1,11,60,612/- and further addition u/s 69C of Rs. 3,34,818/- to the return of income of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: “From the contents of the assessment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

deduction / exemption under the relevant beneficial provisions, the same should not be denied. We must always keep the object of the Act in view while interpreting the section. The legislative intention must be the foundation of the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021) 126 taxmann.com 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

deduction / exemption under the relevant beneficial provisions, the same should not be denied. We must always keep the object of the Act in view while interpreting the section. The legislative intention must be the foundation of the interpretation. In the case of Mother Superior Adoration Convent (2021) 126 taxmann.com 68