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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 of the Act. CIT(A) Order : Para 7 Page 5 to 9 (Finding Para 7.1 Page 9) AO Order : Para 4 Page 3 to 5 a] The observation made by the ld AO while passing the assessment order reads as under: - (Page 4 & 5 of assessment order) "During the course of statements of the above persons, it was noticed

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

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-

4) That assessee had received assessment order u/s 143(3) vide Order No ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1022853643(1) dated 21/12/2019 wherein the assessing authority had made addition in the total income of assessee on two grounds viz (i) addition under section 69A and (ii) addition under section 68

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)

68 on account of share application money received from two entities, namely M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 60,00,000) and M/s Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 18,60,000), along with a further addition of Rs. 1,17,900/- under section 69C, being alleged commission paid to arrange these entries. 4

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)

68 on account of share application money received from two entities, namely M/s Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 60,00,000) and M/s Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 18,60,000), along with a further addition of Rs. 1,17,900/- under section 69C, being alleged commission paid to arrange these entries. 4

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is aco-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is aco-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is aco-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

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

4) of Section 80P of the Act. The appellant is aco-operative credit society under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act whoseprimary object is to provide financial I.T.A. Nos. 68

BADAMI DEVI ,BARMER vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebadami Devi Income Tax Officer, M/S Sbl & Co Llp Ward No. -1 Barmer. (Chartered Accountant) E-75, Kalpatru Shopping Center, Opp. Bioscope Cinemas, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan–342003. Pan No. Aaopd1969R Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr Virtual Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A) Panaji, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Jcit (A)] Dated 28.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 68 without appreciating the material facts on record. 4. Briefly the facts of the case as per record

BANSI LAL KUMHAR,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nsd-\n(DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee's appeal is against an order confirming additions made by the AO under section 68

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 133A from business premises\nof Sanjaysha.\nOn going through the CD as well as documents, it is seen that the assessee\nhas done transaction in FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14and she has bought\n230076 equity shares of Safal Herbs Ltd. at a price of Rs. 42,68,762/- and sold the\nsame quantity

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

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

68 of the Act. Similar support flows from Dr. Raj Dhariwal\n(supra) & Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar (supra), wherein the Tribunal held that a\nsurrender under section 132(4

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause

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

4) The word "sufficient cause" is an important phrase in this section. Since the section is not a matter of right for the party who pleads the condonation, but it depends on the discretion of the court. The court must be satisfied that the delay is caused due to a genuine reason. It is sufficiency of the cause