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-

45,479 1,22,542 1,249 626 4872 16 28- 4873- 12- 7,31,571 36,180 7,67,751 11,630 498 4920 16 29- 4921- 12- 3,47,371 38,360 3,85,731 5,630 528 4944 16 30- 4945- 12- 3,49,962 52,308 4,02,270 5,672 720 4962 16 Total

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

45,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act” x] Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull: (1973) 87 ITR 349 “The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. As it was the department

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

45,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act” x] Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull: (1973) 87 ITR 349 “The onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. As it was the department

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

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

45 (Gau), it has been held that Low profit in a particular year is itself cannot be a ground for invoking the powers of best judgment assessment without support of any material on record-AO relied upon a part of a transaction for the preceding year while rejecting the other. This is not permissible in law. Without pointing

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

45 (Gau), it has been held that Low profit in a particular year is itself cannot be a ground for invoking the powers of best judgment assessment without support of any material on record-AO relied upon a part of a transaction for the preceding year while rejecting the other. This is not permissible in law. Without pointing

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

3) Further, it is imperative to note that section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with condonation of delay in case of appeal. Since the limitation 5 ITA 07 to 11/Jodh/2021 Neeraj Paliwal Vs ITO period for appeals is very short, this section was introduced to meet the end of justice so that the purpose of justice

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

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

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

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 of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 3

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

45-49). Accordingly, the department did not proceed further in any of these matters and they attained finality. All these admitted facts were available on record, when the AO passed the subjected order. 3.5 The law is well settled that where the AO acted following the decisions of the judicial High Court his order cannot be termed as erroneous. Kindly

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

Section 68 is not applicable where the subjected amounts were\nreceived from the customers towards the products sold by the assessee to them,\nthe credit shown of outstanding amounts (realized later), are the credits which\nare self-explanatory and doesn't require a consideration u/s 68 of the Act which\nis a law settled. This view gets support from

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

3 are cumulative and satisfaction of either of the condition does not automatically\ntrigger rigors of section 69A.\nWhen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts are to interpret the\nsame in its literal sense and not to give a meaning which would cause violence to the\nprovisions of the statute, as held in Britania