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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of G.P. International Ltd. 325 ITR 25 (P&H) wherein it is held that “ provisions of section 41 cannot

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.”

5 are in connection with the addition of Rs. 1,83,16,53,000/- made by the AO under section 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

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

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

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

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-

1) dated 21/12/2019 wherein the assessing authority had made addition in the total income of assessee on two grounds viz (i) addition under section 69A and (ii) addition under section 68. (5

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

1 may be referred which have distinguished the decision of McDowells & Co. vs. CTO 154 ITR 148. 10. We also observe that the determination of income of Rs. 2,43,59,629/- made by the AO is hypothetical by assuming that assessee has sold 2236.50 quintals of Gwar on 13.02.2012 @ Rs. 14,000/- per quintal. There is no basis

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During the course of statements of the above persons, it was noticed

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During the course of statements of the above persons, it was noticed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name\nand office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void.\n6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void.\nIt is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 M/s Deepak & Company Infra Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO, Sri Ganganagar 9. It was submitted that the AO after due consideration the circular issued by the CBDT and the submission of the assessee had reached the judicial decision which cannot be branded as erroneous. Further, on the similar issues, the various Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals had considered the circular

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

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 distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239 Para 4.2.3 at he assesee utilized the sale proceeds on of Para 8,9, & No adverse

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

1) The appellant.\n(2) The respondent.\n(3) CIT\n(4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nsd-\n(DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee's appeal is against an order confirming additions made by the AO under section

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings w/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 5

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

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 amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern