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

13. This clause is inserted by the Finance Act with effect from 1st April, 1988. The Explanation to this clause is read very carefully. "Due date" has been explained stating that : means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

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.”

section 68. For taxing loan creditors u/s 68, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of creditor (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of creditor. Once an assessee has submitted the documents such as (i) PAN, (ii) income-tax returns of creditors, (iii) the details of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed

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

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

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

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

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. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.2. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions (pr. 4.6& 4.7 Pg. 6-8) by holding as under:- “4.6 After

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

c] Mismatch in amount paid to related person u/s 40A(2)(b) reported in audit report & ITR. 3. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had raised the queries in respect of issues for which the case of assessee was selected for scrutiny. The assessee had furnished the explanation and documentary evidences as required by the AO and the AO after

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

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

13,000/- made\nby the AO in AY 2019-20, but was of the view that silver found and seized from\nthe lockers had been acquired during two financial years and should have been\ntaxed in those years, and he, accordingly issued notices for enhancement for AY\n2014-15 and AY 2016-17.Simultaneously, he enhanced the income for both these\nAYs

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

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

13,000/- made\nby the AO in AY 2019-20, but was of the view that silver found and seized from\nthe lockers had been acquired during two financial years and should have been\ntaxed in those years, and he, accordingly issued notices for enhancement for AY\n2014-15 and AY 2016-17.Simultaneously, he enhanced the income for both these\nAYs

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

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)

C-111, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara PAN NO: AALCS8492A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R) Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer each

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)

C-111, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara PAN NO: AALCS8492A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R) Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Both the above appeals filed by the Assessee against the separate order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer each

TEJPRAKASH BHANWAR LAL MEHTA,U vs. ITO WARD 1(4), UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

c] No approval from the Jurisdictional authorities u/s 151 and hence the same may kindly be quashed.” I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 5 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Brief fact of the case is that the assesseefiled the return and was processed the return u/s 143(1). On basis of information received

TEJPRAKASH BAHNWAR LAL MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

c] No approval from the Jurisdictional authorities u/s 151 and hence the same may kindly be quashed.” I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 5 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 5. Brief fact of the case is that the assesseefiled the return and was processed the return u/s 143(1). On basis of information received