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

68 : (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Del) , (Delhi High Court); CIT vs. Sabari Enterprises (2007) 213 CTR (Kar) 269 : (2008) 2 DTR (Kar) 394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section under which this addition was made, however, considering the nature of this addition, it could be either u/s. 41(1) of the Act or u/s. 68 of the Act. From the facts and details as furnished by the appellant, it is seen that total sundry creditors consisted of following items:- M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 can be invoked. In the present case, so far as 6th requirement is concerned, it is very much there in existence, inasmuch as the amount has been advanced by account payee cheques, through bank, and is duly supported by documentary evidence, as well as the evidence of the two lenders, and that satisfies the 2nd requirement also

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

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

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

68 of the Act could have been considered;\nbut then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee, apart from raising several other\ngrounds, has challenged the legality of the addition being made under section 69A of the\nAct. In support of the assessee's contentions, the learned AR placed reliance on the\ndecision of the ITAT

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

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the\nAct. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made\non loose sheets of papers unless some independent and corroborative materials to\nprove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or\nunaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. Further the\nseized documents in the case

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

37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38 9,56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/-

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

37,93,728/- 54,20,760/- 12.38 9,56,413/- 2.18 2015-16 4,93,92,963/- 50,88,999/-

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

section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The Ld.AO also calculated the commission amount to Rs. 6,55,255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.8,08,458/- related to 145(3) of the Act on account of increase of net profit from

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 CCH 0553 Jaipur Trib (2023) 225 TTJ 0122 (Jp)\n3. Correct Facts and material not considered as silver belonged to all members of HUF: It\nis submitted that we had filed the detailed written submissions to CIT(A) in this regard vide page\n15 to 20 (PB86-92) also (PB22-34) which may kindly be considered here also before

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

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 and asked why the unsecured loans of Rs. 3, 09, 40, 750/- (Rs. 3,17,40,750 – Rs. 8,00,000) should

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

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

In the results the appeal filed by the

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 28(iv) would be inapplicable—Secondly, consistent view had been taken in favour of assessee, starting with A.Y. 1992-93, that benefits under advance licences or under duty entitlement pass book do not represent real income of assessee—Thus, there was no reason to take a different view unless there are very convincing reasons, none of which