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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act. In response, the A.R. of the assessee vide his written submissions dated 22.03.2016. Reply filed by the AR of the assessee has been considered during the course of assessment proceedings but not found acceptable in toto due to the reason that the following creditors were not having sufficient cash balance with them

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-

68. (5) That the assessee had made available all the relevant documents as required by the assessing authority while replying to the adjudication proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the same had been duly acknowledged by the assessing authority while passing order u/s 143(3) s under – (6

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 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under section 147 were vague, mechanical, and based entirely on information received from the Investigation Wing, without any application of mind or independent verification. It was submitted that the AO merely reproduced the content of the letter from

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 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating proceedings under section 147 were vague, mechanical, and based entirely on information received from the Investigation Wing, without any application of mind or independent verification. It was submitted that the AO merely reproduced the content of the letter from

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 and 69C is illegal and void.\nSubmission:\n(i)\nThat the AO in the reasons recorded, in para 6 has mentioned that :\n6. Basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of Income : In\nview of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of the assessee\namount of Rs. 745080/- in the form

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 was not applicable. And the addition of Rs. 1602814/- by wrong application of law deserves to be deleted. 6

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

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.

6. It was also contended that in the various judicial decisions and it is held that when the identity of the share holder is established no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The amendments made in the law in Section 68

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 was not applicable.  [2024] 158 taxmann.com 655(Chandigarh-Trib.) [23.01.2024] Where during course of survey, assessee surrendered excess stock, cash and receivables and offered same to tax as business income, however, AO treated said surrendered amount as unexplained investment under sections 69 and 69A, since it emerged that source of income of assessee was from its business operations

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

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 68 of the Act. Apart from making sweeping statements, which have been found to be factually erroneous, no objective material has been brought on record by the Ld. Pr. CIT to implicate the assessee or the AO per se of being guilty of non-enquiry. We further find that when confronted with the reasons

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

sections": [ "68", "133(6)", "143(2)", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions

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