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-

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the same had been duly acknowledged by the assessing authority while passing order u/s 143(3) s under – (6) That it is further

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

68 TTJ (JP-TRIB) 731. 5. Provisions of Sec 40A (3) do not apply in respect of an expenditure which is not to be claimed as deduction u/s 30 to 37/of 1.T. Act, 1961. In the instant case payment is for purchase of goods in stock in trade which is again carry forward as closing stock to next year

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

3,47,70,913 NIL Thus, in respect of two parties in whose name advances were shown as outstanding, the appellant duly proved the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction, thus fulfilled necessary ingredients of provisions of sec. 68 of the Act. Even there is no case of attracting the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) For the purposes of this section, a designated income-tax authority shall mean any\nincome-tax authority authorized by theBoard to issue, serve or give such notice or\nother document after authentication in the manner as provided in sub-section (2).\nIn violation of the provisions of section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Income –tax Act, 1961 – “Cash credit [Unsecured loan] – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether when full particulars, inclusive of confirmation with name, address and PAN Number, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account and computation of total income in respect of all creditors/ lenders were furnished and when it had been found

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Income –tax Act, 1961 – “Cash credit [Unsecured loan] – Assessment year 2007-08 – Whether when full particulars, inclusive of confirmation with name, address and PAN Number, copy of income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account and computation of total income in respect of all creditors/ lenders were furnished and when it had been found

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.

10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AOgrossly erred in invoking the provisions of section 68 by holding the sales transactions made by assessee to M/s Milap Enterprises as unexplained. 11. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in holding the sales made

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 68 of IT Act, 1961 by treating the aforesaid amount as unexplained money received from four persons/ loan creditors which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) although he admitted the facts that the said amount has been deposited by cheque in the bank account of respective cash creditors before advancing the same to the Assessee, transfers

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

10. Admittedly, the AO has rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) and made trading addition by adopting GP/NP rate for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our view, where any trading addition is made, section 115 BBE is not applicable because the provisions of section

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

10. Admittedly, the AO has rejected the books of accounts by invoking provisions of section 145(3) and made trading addition by adopting GP/NP rate for estimation of income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our view, where any trading addition is made, section 115 BBE is not applicable because the provisions of section

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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)

10. 2. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together, therefore, they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 21/Chd/2018 for the A.Y 2009-10 as a lead case for discussion, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds

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)

10. 2. Since the issues involved in both the above appeals are common and were heard together, therefore, they are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take ITA No. 21/Chd/2018 for the A.Y 2009-10 as a lead case for discussion, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds

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