ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

195. Rules of Interpretation of Tax Statutes is\nto be construed strictly : in a taxing statute one has to look merely at what is said in the\nrelevant provision. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing\nis to be implied. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAILEELA SYNTHETICS PVT. LD. , BHILWARA

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.279/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit- Bhilwara Circle M/S. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara 147, New Cloth Market Rajasthan. Pur Road, Bhilwara Vs. Rajasthan-311 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcs-1103-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

6) were issued to confirm the transactions, however, the same did not elicit any satisfactory response. Accordingly, the assessee was required to demonstrate the fulfillment of ingredients of Section 68 by proving the identity as well as creditworthiness of the investor entities along with genuineness of the stated transactions. 3.3 The assessee submitted that all the share applicants were

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. 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 National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

6 9. The Ld. AR argued that when Assessee’s receipts are accepted as commission income for charging tax in the hands of the Assessee then corresponding tax rebate expenses has to be allowed. He pleaded that the addition made by way of disallowance of business expenses amounting to Rs. 1,20,55,195/- may be deleted

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 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

195 ITD 142 (Mum) The Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT held as under:- 9. What a tax auditor states in his report are his opinion and his opinion cannot bind the auditee at all. In light, when one considers what has been reported to be ‘ due date ’ in column 20(b) in respect of contributions received from employees

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

195 ITD 142 (Mum) The Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT held as under:- 9. What a tax auditor states in his report are his opinion and his opinion cannot bind the auditee at all. In light, when one considers what has been reported to be ‘ due date ’ in column 20(b) in respect of contributions received from employees