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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced

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-

section 68 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

30. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the learned Assessing officer, are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

30. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the reasons recorded by the learned Assessing officer, are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. 31. We therefore, quash the assessment orders u/s 144 read with section

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

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

2. Without Prejudice to above- That on the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the law the proceeding initiated under section 147 read with section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary\nsanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner\nof Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice\nunder section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the\nassessee through

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. Whether section 68 of the I.T. Act (addition by ITO was made by invoking of the same) is applicable on the present case because there were not a single entry of cash credit during the year. The transactions (labour payment) were in the nature of trade creditors? 3. Whether notice u/s 148 by recording reasons to verify