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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

15,00,000/- against disallowance of Rs. 42,34,358/- out of various expenses made by the AO in absence of verification. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the activity of ready mix concrete to be manufacturing and hence allowing additional depreciation

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 was discharged. It further appears that the assessee had also produced confirmation letters given by those lenders. [Para 15

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 was discharged. It further appears that the assessee had also produced confirmation letters given by those lenders. [Para 15

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

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

68 read with section 1 15 BBE. He requested that\nthe same may kindly be deleted.\n8.\n9.\nThe

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)

section 68 if the overall transaction lacks credibility and commercial rationale. The onus is higher where entities are found to be part of an accommodation entry racket, and in such circumstances, the test of human probability must prevail over formality. 14. The assessee has placed on record a set of documents in support of the receipt of share capital

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)

section 68 if the overall transaction lacks credibility and commercial rationale. The onus is higher where entities are found to be part of an accommodation entry racket, and in such circumstances, the test of human probability must prevail over formality. 14. The assessee has placed on record a set of documents in support of the receipt of share capital

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

15 /09/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 28.09.2018 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. When name, address and PAN of concerned

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

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

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly