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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

45,080/- on account of unexplained cash credits.\n(iii)\nIn the assessment order there is no finding that any books of accounts were\nmaintained by the assessee and that the alleged amount was found credited in the\nbooks of accounts or even in the bank account.\nAs per section 68 :\n“where any sum is found credited

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

5,00,000) may not be treated as unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

5,00,000) may not be treated as unexplained credits and may not be added to his total income as per Provisions of Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016 has submitted as under: - o"kZ ds nkSjku fy;k x;k Unsecured Loans

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

45,588/- and a demand of Rs. 2,27,290/- has been raised. (4) That we were advised by our legal consultant that the said assessment order is legally incorrect and an appeal before CIT- (Appeals) was accordingly filed. (5) That as per the said order passed by CIT-(Appeals) dated 23-03- 2017 disallowances made

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

45,588/- and a demand of Rs. 2,27,290/- has been raised. (4) That we were advised by our legal consultant that the said assessment order is legally incorrect and an appeal before CIT- (Appeals) was accordingly filed. (5) That as per the said order passed by CIT-(Appeals) dated 23-03- 2017 disallowances made

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

45,588/- and a demand of Rs. 2,27,290/- has been raised. (4) That we were advised by our legal consultant that the said assessment order is legally incorrect and an appeal before CIT- (Appeals) was accordingly filed. (5) That as per the said order passed by CIT-(Appeals) dated 23-03- 2017 disallowances made

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

45,588/- and a demand of Rs. 2,27,290/- has been raised. (4) That we were advised by our legal consultant that the said assessment order is legally incorrect and an appeal before CIT- (Appeals) was accordingly filed. (5) That as per the said order passed by CIT-(Appeals) dated 23-03- 2017 disallowances made

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

45,588/- and a demand of Rs. 2,27,290/- has been raised. (4) That we were advised by our legal consultant that the said assessment order is legally incorrect and an appeal before CIT- (Appeals) was accordingly filed. (5) That as per the said order passed by CIT-(Appeals) dated 23-03- 2017 disallowances made

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

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

45,220/- for AY 2017-18. The AO made additions of Rs. 78,73,000/- under section 68 for debtor realization and Rs. 5

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

45,000/- whereas the sales for the year\nbeing Rs.19,93,963/- only. The AO has overlooked the fact that the assessee also had\ndebtors of Rs.13,37,552/- as on 31.03.2015, in addition to agricultural receipts of Rs.\n10,69,442/- and rental receipts of Rs.1,20,000/-. The AO has also expressed a doubt that\nthe return

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

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

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

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

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