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

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry. (Refer

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

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry. (Refer

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

justice but also against the law settled by Hon'ble Courts in following cases: - i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

justice but also against the law settled by Hon'ble Courts in following cases: - i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where proceedings under section 147 was initiated to verify the source of Investment made

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-

natural justice and liable to be set aside. (26) That it is further for your kind atten That it is further for your kind attention that the Commissioner Appeals had tion that the Commissioner Appeals had passed a cryptic order affirming the findings of assessing authority without considering passed a cryptic order affirming the findings of assessing authority without considering

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)

justice. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 06.02.2008. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 74,740/-. Subsequently, based on specific information received from the DDIT (Investigation)-II, Udaipur, the case was reopened under section 147. The information

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)

justice. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company incorporated on 06.02.2008. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs. 74,740/-. Subsequently, based on specific information received from the DDIT (Investigation)-II, Udaipur, the case was reopened under section 147. The information

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

natural justice, the AO disposed off the objection of the assessee vide his speaking order dated 21.02.2022. Thereafter, the AO issued a show cause notice dated 15.03.2022 to the assessee for not furnishing the details as required vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 17.03.2022 through faceless proceedings. The reply

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice. 3 Om Prakash Bishnu 5. The Id. AO has made the addition of Rs.3,32,34,038/- simply on the basis of DVO's Report who has valued the Hospital Building on the basis of CPWD Rates and without allowing any deduction for self- supervision and deduction for purchase and procurement of the building material by the assessee

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

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 the Act and also charging higher rate of tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in making addition of Rs 334818 in respect of commission paid on alleged bogus sale under section 69C of the Act 17. That on the facts

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

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

natural justice. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case he ld. CIT(A0 erred in invoking the provision of section 69A of the Act for sustaining addition whereas it is evident that the AO has not made out a case calling for an addition under section 69A of the Act. 7. That on the facts

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

justice and appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. First ground of appeal is general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT In the 2nd ground the appellant challenged the decision of the Ld. 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur that he has erred in affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances