ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

68 of the Act could have been considered;\nbut then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other\ngrounds, has challenged the legality of the addition being made under section 69A of the\nAct. In support of the assessee's contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the\ndecision of the ITAT – Mumbai

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

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

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

section 143(3) dated 30.12.2017 in the interest of equity and justice on this ground alone. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. GOA-3: Addition of Rs. 44,701,826/- in A.Y. 2013-14, Rs.1,64,40,157/- or 5,91,76,693/- in A.Y. 2014-15, Rs.5

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)

demonetization period and before introduction of amendment made on 15/12/2016 by the Ministry of Law and Justice through The Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 (No. 48 of 2016). Ground No. 4 :It is stated in the first para of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.11.2019 that the case was selected for scrutiny based

MANJU GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

68 to 69D of the Income Tax Act. The source of the income is well-explained and supported by statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings. 5. As on the date of the survey (23.08.2016), the amended provisions of Section 115BBE were not in force, and the surrendered income was accepted by the Revenue authorities as business income subject

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

demonetization period were duly explained by the Assessee vide\nits submissions that the same were out of sale proceeds received in Cash from\nthe manufacturing of the Patta Patti business. The cash deposits and withdrawal\nfrom the bank accounts were duly recorded in the day to day cash book\nmaintained by the assessee and shown as a turnover. Therefore, treating

CREATIVE PROPMART PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

demonetization period as unexplained cash credit by applying the provision of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The assessee

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

demonetization period. Likewise, he observes that VAT acceptance of derive over does not preclude scrutiny or addition under the Income Tax Act while sustaining the addition u/s 68 and 69 of the Act. 11. The ld. Counsel for the assessee had explained with evidence the cash received on sale of tractors and debtors etc. with the supporting documentary evidences before

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

demonetization, the cash was deposited into the bank account. Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee and but did not consider that reasons as acceptable, as reasoned in the order and same reads as under :- 1. The arguments of the assessee are too general in nature and lack any substance. 2. The closing cash balance

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

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

section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is allowed.” e) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v/s Baldev Raj Charla reported in 121 TTJ 366 held as under: “Income from undisclosed sources- Addition under s. 69- Cash deposits – There being no material with IT authorities

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.”

demonetization Period (नोटबंद" ) के दौरान जमा 10,30,000/- के जमा का कोई स्प ष्ट स्"ोत "स्तुत नह"ं "क या गया, कृपया स्प ष्ट कर" "क क्य" न इसे आपक" अन्य साधन" से आय मानते हुए, आपक" कुल आय म" जोड़ "द या जाए? “In response to the above notice it was humbly submitted before him that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAOTA C ROAD vs. HRDK BULLION AND REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

demonetization i.e., 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, there was cash sales of R$. 1, 81,554/- only, " From the submissions and documentary evidences provided by the appellant assessee, this appellate authority is in the view that 'there was year on year growth in the total turnover of the appellant assessee, so if there (s a growth of total turnover of the appellant

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the IT. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2016-17 and action w/s. 153C r.w.s. 153A required to be initiated in this case. Therefore, notices U/s 153Cr.w.s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2011-12 to 2016-17 are being issued in this case. 7. Assessment years involved