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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act cannot be extended to unexplained investments under Section 69A of the Act.” iii] In view

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 68 of the Act cannot be extended to unexplained investments under Section 69A of the Act.” iii] In view

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 of the Income Tax That another addition to total income is 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)

section 68 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating

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)

section 68 and section 69C. The assessee’s principal argument is that the reasons recorded by the AO for initiating

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

section 68 read with section 1 15 BBE. He requested that\nthe same may kindly be deleted

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 68 and added it to the total income, also adding commission expenses under section 69C. The CIT(A) dismissed

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 for making the addition of Rs. 1602814/- to the total income. But the Section 68

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. 3.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming

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.

Section 68 and Section 56(2)(viib) were applicable only from A.Y. 2013-14. Such a view

ISLAUDDIN,JODHPUR vs. ITO-PHALODI, PHALODI

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

section 68 of the Act could have been considered;\nbut then that is not the case of the AO. The assessee

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

Section 68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

Section 68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Section 68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Section 68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case

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 the addition has been made. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds presuming but not admitting that the addition on account of cash deposits has been made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act the same

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 the addition has been made. 4.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds presuming but not admitting that the addition on account of cash deposits has been made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act the same