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. (5) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of G.P. International Ltd. 325 ITR 25 (P&H) wherein it is held that “ provisions of section 41 cannot

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

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

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)

5. The core grievance of the assessee pertains to the legality of the reopening of the assessment and the additions made 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)

5. The core grievance of the assessee pertains to the legality of the reopening of the assessment and the additions made under section 68

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

Section 68 of the Act. 16. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances as well as material placed on record and the case laws with regard to the issue under consideration, we find merit in the contentions of the ld. AR and we direct to delete the addition made U/s 68 of the Act. We order accordingly

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

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

RANJEET SHARMA,RAWATSAR vs. ITO, WARD NOHAR,, HANUMANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5) The ITO has invoked the provision of section 68 for making the addition of Rs. 1602814/- to the total

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 on the finding that amount received as unsecured loan from Sh. Babul al Mutal Mal HUF Rs. 6,00,000/-, Sh. Hansraj Babulal HUF Rs. 3,00,000/-, Sh. Parasmal Bhansali Rs. 5

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282A, the AO has not authenticated the\nassessment order and notices issued u/s 143(2)/142(1) by printing or stamping his name\nand office. Therefore, the order passed, without authentication is null and void.\n6. Most of the order of CIT (A) is not legible and void.\nIt is, therefore, requested please to delete the addition

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. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee company is deriving

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable only from A.Y. 2013-14. Such a view cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5

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

section 68 for debtor realization and Rs. 5,60,000/- for unexplained unsecured loans.", "held": "The Tribunal held that