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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) has held that:- “Once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial burden under section 68

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 taxmann.com 159 (Guj.) has held that:- “Once the assessee has established that he has taken money by way of account payee cheques from the lenders who are all income tax assessees whose PAN have been disclosed, the initial burden under section 68

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)

21. In conclusion, considering the totality of facts, corroborative evidence, and binding judicial precedents, we hold that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were entirely justified in treating the share capital receipts as unexplained income and unexplained expenditure under Sections 68

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)

21. In conclusion, considering the totality of facts, corroborative evidence, and binding judicial precedents, we hold that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) were entirely justified in treating the share capital receipts as unexplained income and unexplained expenditure under Sections 68

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

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

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

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

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

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

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

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

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

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

21,961/-, we find that this is a fact that no section is mentioned by the AO or CIT (A) for making this addition and for this reason alone, the addition is bad in law as per the tribunal order cited by the learned AR Of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha Loyalka

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every\nadditions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature,\notherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly\nmade against the Act . (vide page 21

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

68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every\nadditions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature,\notherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly\nmade against the Act . (vide page 21

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 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e. other sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every additions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature, otherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly made against the Act . (vide page 21

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

68 or 69 or 69A or trading or u/s 56 i.e.\nother sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the Act for every\nadditions, the provisions or section has been provided by the legislature,\notherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is wrongly\nmade against the Act . (vide page 21

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)

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the\nAct. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made\non loose sheets of papers unless some independent and corroborative materials to\nprove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or\nunaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. Further the\nseized documents in the case

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

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that the firm was guilty of any of the acts\nspecified in Chapter