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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13,00,000/- u/s 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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

13,00,000/- u/s 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

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

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-

e the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside. (17) That another addition to total income is made under section 68 of the Income Tax That another addition to total income is made under section 68 of the Income Tax That another addition to total income is made under section 68 of the Income

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

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.

68 of Rs. 1,11,60,612/- and further addition u/s 69C of Rs. 3,34,818/- to the return of income of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: “From the contents of the assessment

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:-

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

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

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

E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Udaipur dated 23/03/2017 and 16/12/2017, for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2010-11 respectively in the matter of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

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) 3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It is submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page 15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

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)

e-filing portal on 08.08.2019. During the survey proceedings, statements of Shri Raj Kumar Bairwa, Shri Kamal Bansal and Smt. Bharti Bansal, partners of the assessee hospital were recorded. During survey, excess cash of Rs. 70,550/- was found in the premises. A diary MEFTAL-FORT containing pages 1 to 12 (Annexure-A, Exhibit-1) was also found and impounded

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

13 the assessee, which further was supported by the various transactions in the bank account. Both these facts totally stood ignored by the Learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Learned CIT(A). On the other hand, the Learned Assessing Officer as well as the Learned CIT(A) have wrongly observed that being owner of land would not prove

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(iv). That is not the situation before us. We, therefore, see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. 11. In a result, this appeal is allowed

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, or when no findings were to be given on the scope of permissible adjustments under section 143(1)(a)(iv). That is not the situation before us. We, therefore, see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. 11. In a result, this appeal is allowed

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief