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

section 132 and as per income tax rules 112 for\nsuch proceedings. The search party has commenced the search action in absence of any\ncompetent person of any of the company mentioned in the search warrant and further\nsearch warrant was not signed by any of the competent person. The search warrant was\nnot shown to any competent person

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

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

RITU ROAD LINES,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ritu Road Lines, The Dcit, Plot No.12-14, Nakoda V Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. Industrial Area, Basni, S Jodhpur – 342001. Pan: Aaafr9440D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

234B. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend or vary from the above the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” Brief facts of the case : 2. In this case, the assessee had e-filed Return of Income on 28.10.2018 declaring loss of Rs.28,74,639/-. There was a search in Ritu Group

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

234B and 2340 The assessee did not furnish any contentions in respect of this ground of appeal during the appellate proceedings. The levy of interest under these sections is mandatory on satisfaction of the conditions specified in the respective sections. The assessee did not point out specific mistakes that occurred in computation of interest under these sections

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:-

68 of Rs. 96,13,761/- on account of increase in unsecured loans in comparison to previous year. The Assessee could not submit his submission. All the unsecured loans taken during the year is genuine and fair so the addition may kindly be quashed. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

234B and 234C. 14. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground at or before the time of hearing. 15. The petitioner prays for justice and relief.” 3. The facts as culled out from the record are that the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 was electronically furnished on 25.11.2014 declaring

SMT. MANJULA DEVI JAIN ,PALI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsmt. Manjula Devi Jain Vs Income Tax Officer, 1-35, Housing Board, Ward-2, Pali. Pali. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aampj4848D

68. The addition so sustained is bad in law and bad on facts. 4. The charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C is bad in law and on facts. 5. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 6. The appellant craves liberty to add, amend, alter and modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

234B of the Act. 25. that the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter. Revise and modify any of the grounds of appeal on, before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Ground No. 1 and 2 are general in nature and accordingly, shall be adjudicated

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

SUSHIL KUMAR JHABAK,BIKANER vs. NFAC, DELHI / ITO,WARD-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ao With All Supporting Evidence But Ld. Ao Ignored While Relevant Facts So The Addition Made By Ao For Treating The Cash Deposit Rs. 5,50,000/- Unexplained & Charged Tax At A Special Rate Which Was Not Ought To So It Is Deserve To Be Deleted. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C. 3.The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Ground Sat Or Before The Hearing.”

234B & 234C of the Act is consequential in nature and hence, not adjudicated. Hence, the same is dismissed COME TAX DEPARTM 5. The Ground No.3 is residuary in nature which has not been availed and hence, the same is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee not received any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

234B and 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter or modify any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honours.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the In this case, Shri Shyam Sunder Soni, Karta of afore-said HUF was arriving from Mumbai