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

143(1) of the Act, which is debatable and controversial, be directed to be deleted. Amendment in section 36(1)(va) of the Act is prospective in nature 8. The Finance Act, 2021 had introduced the following amendment by bringing in Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act: “[Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts

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 of the Act. We have reproduced relevant part of Para 7 of the judgement of Tribunal: 7......It has also proved the capacity of the creditors by showing that the amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques drawn from bank accounts of the creditors and the assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

68,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “Paragraph 15 …………..But Section 143

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

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, it is seen that total sundry creditors consisted of following items:- M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project

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-

143(3) vide Order No ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022853643(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

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

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

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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

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

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

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

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

Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such\ntime limit would start from

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 68 are not attracted in this case. Further, in this case for the shares trading not a single paisa was received by the assessee from the broker Seema Securities. All the transactions were made on credit and the amount of profit was also not received by the assessee from the broker during the year. Therefore, any addition

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.

68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable only from A.Y. 2013-14. Such a view cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. The impugned order U/s 263 is illegal and most unjustified, as the same is not based on any valid material or legal evidence whatsoever on records, but the same

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)

143(3) is null and void ab initio. The same view is supported by the decision of Allahabad Tribunal in the case of “Girdhar Gopal Rastogi vs. CIT (2022) 142 Taxmann.com 142” wherein it was held that “Where there is no impounding of books of account during survey under section 133A and returned income of assessee for year under

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

143(3) read with section 147, in substance and in essence, what was sought to be revised was the original order of assessment dated 27-12-2006 and since in respect of that order, the period of limitation for exercising the revisional powers had expired on 31-3-2009 having regard to the provisions of section

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The Ld.AO also calculated the commission amount to Rs. 6,55,255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.8,08,458/- related to 145(3) of the Act on account of increase of net profit from

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 the Act and also charging higher rate of tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 16. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id AO grossly erred in making addition of Rs 334818 in respect of commission paid on alleged bogus sale under section 69C of the Act 17. That

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) has already been completed. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the details related to deduction of section 54F of the Act have already been examined in the original assessment proceedings. For that of the matter the ld. AR drawn our attention to the order sheet entry at page 6 of his paper book filed