ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

Section 68 is not applicable where the subjected amounts were\nreceived from the customers towards the products sold by the assessee to them,\nthe credit shown of outstanding amounts (realized later), are the credits which\nare self-explanatory and doesn't require a consideration u/s 68 of the Act which\nis a law settled. This view gets support from

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

section 40A(3) which provides where on account of exception allow ability of cash payment looking to the consideration of business expediency and the relevant factor as substituted wide Finance Act 2008 effective from 01/04/2009. 3 M/s Shree Tirupati Associates 3. The A.O. has not considered following relevant case laws including Rajasthan High court, Jodhpur wherein looking

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

220];\n(iv) The material or information found in the course of survey proceeding\ncould not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide\ndecision of this Court in T.C.(A) No.2620 of 2006 (between Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v. S.Ajit Kumar); [2008] 300 ITR 153 (Mad)\n(v) Finally, the word \"may\" used in Section