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

10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered view that the impugned adjustment in course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated in law, and we delete the same. As we hold so, we make it clear that our observations remain confined to the peculiar facts before us, that our adjudication

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

10. Next, let us examine the applicability of section 41(1) in respect of sundry creditors of Rs. 25,91,01,791/-. The appellant referred to the provisions of sec., 41(1) and relied on various judicial decision to argue that where the liabilities are outstanding for earlier years and had not been written back, there is no justification

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.”

10. Finance Act, 2012 inserts two provisos to Section 68, with effect from 1- 4-2013 (assessment year 2013-14). First

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

1,00,12,663/- Synthetics, Bhilwara 7. Shree Govindam 180794.65 2,13,97,050/- Textile, Bhilwara TOTAL 833554.45 10,00,68,034/- TOTAL 833554.45 10,00,68,034/- From the above details it can be noted that quantity and the amount of purchases made from M/s Maximum Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. is duly recorded in the regular books of accounts

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) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority while replying to the adjudication proceedings under section

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

1(3), Ahmedabad that a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was launched on 11.09.2018 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah of Ahmedabad. The search resulted into seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37 crores (related accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) along with incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,39,79,176/- in the P & L account,. Similarly, the assessee has shown the value of Salasar Toll Road at Rs. 10,68,69,665/- as on 09.08.2012, WDV of which as on 31.03.2014 was shown at Rs. 8,58,54,355/-. In the year under reference, the assessee 7 M/s Deepak & Company Infra

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

10,000/- 6. R.S. Rathi HUF Rs. 37,87,000/- Total Rs. 1,47,01,596/- Further, the AO referred to assessee’s letter dated 14-11-2017 showing the source of unsecured loans of Rs 3.17 Cr from the aforesaid 4 parties and asked why the unsecured loans

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 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh O;fDr;ksa ls psd }kjk yh xbZ FkhA muds lk{; Lo:i mu lHkh

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 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans dh jkf'k 22]00]000 :- Fkh tks fd lHkh O;fDr;ksa ls psd }kjk yh xbZ FkhA muds lk{; Lo:i mu lHkh

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

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)

10 Life Care Hospital, Abu Road, Sirohi. Ground No. 6 :The ld. AO erred in taxing u/s 115BBE of Income Tax Act, the income disclosed in the return of income after survey u/s 133A of the Act, rather than taxing under the normal provision of the Income Tax Act : 1. In the case of assessee survey was carried

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)

68 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand

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)

68 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8. On the other hand

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

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

10, Shahi Complex, Hiran Magri, Sec.-11, Udaipur. The DCIT Central Circle-1 Udaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AKUPJ5708Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/05/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. The assessee has filed these two appeals challenging the impugned orders dated