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

24) of s. 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date. Explanation.—Fur the purposes of this clause, 'due date' means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

section 68. For taxing loan creditors u/s 68, the assessee is required to prove: (a) Identity of creditor (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) Creditworthiness of creditor. Once an assessee has submitted the documents such as (i) PAN, (ii) income-tax returns of creditors, (iii) the details of bank accounts through and to which the loan amount has passed

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. ADIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

LUBI GEL LLP,JODHPUR vs. DCIT,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C.G. TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), , JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

C G TECHNOSOFT PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

68 & 69/Jodh/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Lubi GEL LLP Vs. The DCIT, CPC Jodhpur Bangluru PAN NO: AAGFL1843E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Raksha Birla, CA Revenue by : Smt. Monisha, JCIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2021 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate

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-

24) That the order under section 250 was passed on 10/01/2024 as under That the order under section 250 was passed on 10/01/2024 as under – That the order under section 250 was passed on 10/01/2024 as under (25) That from the above details it is evident that the order was pa That from the above details

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68. [Para 16]” ix] The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ITO Vs Mahesh Mordia in ITA No 545/JP/2019 dated 12/07/2019 held as under:- “We found that the ld. CIT(A) has contraverted all the objections of the A.O. and after considering various documents placed on record before the A.O., the ld. CIT(A) recorded

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68. [Para 16]” ix] The Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of ITO Vs Mahesh Mordia in ITA No 545/JP/2019 dated 12/07/2019 held as under:- “We found that the ld. CIT(A) has contraverted all the objections of the A.O. and after considering various documents placed on record before the A.O., the ld. CIT(A) recorded

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

24,45,000/- 4. Sanjay Rathi HUF Rs. 9,85,596/- 5. Smt. Preeti Rathi Rs. 25,10,000/- 6. R.S. Rathi HUF Rs. 37,87,000/- Total Rs. 1,47,01,596/- Further, the AO referred to assessee’s letter dated 14-11-2017 showing the source of unsecured loans of Rs 3.17 Cr from the aforesaid 4 parties

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

24), Section 56(2)(viib) and Section 68 were made applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 in relation to share capital and premium and therefore, no addition was made. This decision of the AO was examining the complete details and this was precisely the reason for which the action U/s 148 was taken. Such a view according

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 by the Assessee in ITA No. 21/Jodh/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9 24. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeal i.e ITA No. 20 / Jodh/2018 are exactly identical

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 by the Assessee in ITA No. 21/Jodh/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 filed by the assessee is dismissed. 9 24. Both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of other appeal i.e ITA No. 20 / Jodh/2018 are exactly identical

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

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern

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

68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,45,588/-. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 31/07/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,24,262/- In this return of income, the assessee shown net profit of Rs. 1,24,039/- from his proprietory business concern