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

28—. . (va) any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions sub-clause (x) of clause (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

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

section 263(2), the notice issued on 30-4- 2009 was barred by limitation. 6.4 In Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2021) 90 ITR TRIB (Trib) 554 (Mum), it was held that: 23 | P a g e "10. A perusal of the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment under s. 147 of the Act, as reproduced

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 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

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

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

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)

2. But the assessing officer without giving any opportunity of being heard to the assessee that on what basis he treated the expenses of Rs. 62,33,425/- u/s 69 of the Act and cash of Rs. 70,550/- u/s 69A of the Act. 3. To attract deeming provision of sections 69 and 69A of the Act the foremost

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

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

28 of the assessment order.\nHe also stated that during the course of assessment the registries of the flats sold\nduring the year were obtained and payment details have been verified from the\nregular books of accounts and found that none of the cash transactions as reported\nin the seized pages match with receipts shown in the books of accounts

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

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

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

RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section would be applicable to Sec 14A (3). 4.1 The ld. AR submitted a calculation which are reproduced as below: Formula A.O’s wrong working Appellant’s correct working A * B 4,41,49,88,428 * 15,00,00,000 0*15,00,00,000 I.T.A. No. 125/Jodh/2022 6 Assessment Year: 2015-16 C 81,07,68,28

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

68 of the Act. Apart from making sweeping statements, which have been found to be factually erroneous, no objective material has been brought on record by the Ld. Pr. CIT to implicate the assessee or the AO per se of being guilty of non-enquiry. We further find that when confronted with the reasons

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

28,29,852/-, Diwali and Vishwakarma Puja Expenses Rs. 78,146/- , depreciation of Rs. 1,22,952/- and interest paid to partner of Rs.36,001/-.However all ground have been deleted in CIT (Appeal) except interest paid to partner. 2013-14 09.03.2016 14,99,910 3,21,580 Trading result accepted by the ld. AO. The ld. AO disallowed telephone

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

28,29,852/-, Diwali and Vishwakarma Puja Expenses Rs. 78,146/- , depreciation of Rs. 1,22,952/- and interest paid to partner of Rs.36,001/-.However all ground have been deleted in CIT (Appeal) except interest paid to partner. 2013-14 09.03.2016 14,99,910 3,21,580 Trading result accepted by the ld. AO. The ld. AO disallowed telephone