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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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 are invoked incorrectly and therefore entireproceedings are liable to be set aside. incorrectly and therefore entireproceedings are liable to be set aside. (21) That thereafter appeal was filed by assessee That thereafter appeal was filed by assessee vide Acknowledgment number vide Acknowledgment number 288916651080120 dated 08/01/2020 and during proceedings assessee had submitted all 288916651080120 dated 08/01/2020

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)

sections 68 and 69C are fully justified based on the material brought on record. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed

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)

sections 68 and 69C are fully justified based on the material brought on record. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": ["68", "69C", "147", "148", "151", "115BBE", "142(1)", "10(38)", "10(23)", "282A"], "issues": "Whether the addition of Rs. 7,45,080/- as unexplained

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

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

23,474/- for unexplained investment in gold jewelry was deleted as the department failed to consider social status, customary practices, and evidence of gifts and streedhan.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": ["153A", "143(3)", "68

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

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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

23-03-2017. (6) That as per provisions of section 253(3) of the Act I was required to file the appeal before ITAT within 60 days of receipt of order of CIT-(Appeals) i.e by 22-05-2017. 4 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO The provisions of section

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, 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

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

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

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

sections 68 and 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.1,65,23,302/- is deleted. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of the assessee