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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act without going into factual matrix of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act without going into factual matrix of the case. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

11 of his order as under :- “ 7. It is seen that the AO has not specified any section under which this addition was made, however, considering the nature of this addition, it could be either u/s. 41(1) of the Act or u/s. 68 of the Act. From the facts and details as furnished by the appellant

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

4. It is not the case of CIT that there was a complete/total lack of inquiry. Law is well settled that the Assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. 4.1 Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto

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:-

4. In the case of one of the creditors Shri Hansraj Babu Lal HUF, the amount of cash credit of Rs. 2,00,000/- was found recorded in the books of Assessee by the AO while he has made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, although by no stretch of imagination an addition

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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68 of the Act. Similar support flows from Dr. Raj Dhariwal\n(supra) & Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar (supra), wherein the Tribunal held that a\nsurrender under section 132(4) of the Act raises only a rebuttable presumption and,\nabsent corroborative evidence of actual payment, cannot alone form the foundation\nfor an addition toward unexplained investment

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

4 ITA 156/Johd/2018 M/s Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT amendment in Section 2(24), Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 68 were made applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 in relation to share capital and premium and therefore, no addition was made. This decision of the AO was examining the complete details and this was precisely

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books

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

68 of the Act as applied by ld AO. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A)NFAC erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 1,59,789/- in respect of cash deposited in bank account particularly when the nature and source of such cash deposits had been explained with evidences. 5. That