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

iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.” The Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of CemetileIndustries

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

26,05,56,927.14 As on 31.03.2014 31.03.2013 31.03.2012 31.03.2011 YEAR Ended 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 PARTICULAR Advance from Customer (A) WIPL *87,434,189.00 5,25,16,291.00 - - Other 1,074,429.00 11,823,624.00 - - Total (A) 88508618.00 6,43,39,915.82 SUNDRY CREDITORS

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

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-

26- 4861- 40,969 37,342 78,311 664 514 12- 4866 16 Sita Devi Choudhary, Jalore 16 27- 4867- 12- 77,063 45,479 1,22,542 1

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 Rs. 1,11,60,612/- and further addition u/s 69C of Rs. 3,34,818/- to the return of income of the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the finding of the AO by observing as under: “From the contents of the assessment

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

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

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

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

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

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

iii) Thus, total amount of Rs.34,75,71,532/- has escaped assessment to tax for the A.Y. 2012-13 within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.2 The AO thus, having recorded specific reasons, could not have enquired into and examined any issue other than those already recorded in the reasons

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

1,65,22,302/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of facts brought on record by him through investigation, is squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Agarwalla [2022] 143 taxmann.com 402 wherein, the decision in the case

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

1,30,00,000/- as explained. Copies of relevant documents, such as IT return, copy of bank account, copy of ledger account , cash flow statement etc. were furnished before the Learned CIT(A) as per paper book. These are available on fresh paper book being submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT on page No.86-143. 5. Piyush Kumar Biyani AMJPB1202G

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

1,26,65,229/-(8194403+4470826)\ninstead of Rs.81,94,403/- declared by the assessee. Accordingly he has made\naddition of Rs.44,70,826/- in the A.Y. 2013-14. Same type of additions have also\nbeen made in the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17 asper the above chart.\n6.2. Further

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

iii) 80 percent of receipt Rs.77978 shown under 26AS on which TDS deducted u/s.194H, (iv) Interest receipt Rs.5789510 shown under 26AS on which TDS deducted u/s.194A, (v) Rs.11281311 being cash deposited in banks accounts of assessee. 3.1 Assessee made its reply vide letter dated 21.11.2017 which is reproduced in the impugned order. After considering the submissions of 4 DCIT

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

iii) the Accounting Standards as notified u/s 145(2) have not been followed by the assessee. 8.1 It is not disputed that the assessee has maintained complete books of accounts with sales and purchase vouchers and expenditure details which are duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The assessee filed audit report in which auditor did not point

RAIS AHMED MEWAFAROSH,DUNGARPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result both these appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

iii) the Accounting Standards as notified u/s 145(2) have not been followed by the assessee. 8.1 It is not disputed that the assessee has maintained complete books of accounts with sales and purchase vouchers and expenditure details which are duly audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The assessee filed audit report in which auditor did not point

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 115BBE of the Act on the professional income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the appellant assessee during the course of survey u/s 133A and which was included by him in his return income. The ld. AO has also erred in invoking provisions of sec. 115BBE on addition of Rs.1,00,000/- made

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

iii. That in respect of party No 4,7,10,11,13 and 14, as reported in Page 12 & 13 of the order, the appellant having stock of tractors and out of same had sold the tractors to various parties. The copies of bills issued by company are enclosed herewith which proves beyond doubts that the observation made

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

1. Various questions of law with respect to disallowance and additions made inthe course of re-assessment proceedings are urged by the Revenue in its appeal under Section 260A of the income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). 2.The search under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in the assessee's premises on 10.2.2010. This resulted

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

68,58,343/- Total Rs.97,05,59,476/- Net profit/total income Rs.16,45,86,794/- (-) 39 Varaha Infra Ltd. The net result of computation of net profit is loss. The result of computation of income made by Ld ITAT in respect of AY 2016-17 was also in loss as is evident from para 25. 26