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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the I.T. Act (addition by ITO was made by invoking of the same) is applicable on the present case because there were not a single entry of cash credit during the year. The transactions (labour payment) were in the nature of trade creditors? 3. Whether notice u/s 148 by recording reasons to verify the suspicious transactions

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

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

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

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)

70,550/- u/s 69A of the Act. 3. To attract deeming provision of sections 69 and 69A of the Act the foremost requirements that is to be followed is that the income should be from any other source rather than from its regular source of earning. 4. What is relevant before invoking the deeming provisions is not just

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

70,19,808/- by applying the higher GP rate of 20.92% as against 12.24% shown by the assesssee by not considering the real facts, material available record and written submissions. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is completely contrary to the provisions of law, facts of the case and as such, it is not in conformity

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

70,19,808/- by applying the higher GP rate of 20.92% as against 12.24% shown by the assesssee by not considering the real facts, material available record and written submissions. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is completely contrary to the provisions of law, facts of the case and as such, it is not in conformity

LAL CHAND CHOUDHARY,JAISALMER vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelal Chand Choudhary Acit/ Dcit, Circle, S-8, Transport Nagar, Barmer Jaisalmer - 345001 Pan No. Aaopc 6671 K Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 09.04.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.:

70,42,500/- u/s 69A and 43,34,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected 5 Asst. Year: 2017-18 the submissions of the assessee by observing that the sales registers and debtors realization submitted lack corroborative evidence providing cash receipt from customers and that the VAT records are however while acknowledging

CHANDAN SINGH,POKRAN vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

70,63,030/- has been accepted by the AO as genuine, so question of addition of the sum of Rs.78.22.863/- which represented the liability to pay the truck owners by assessee cannot be added us. 68 of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we agree that section

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

70,00,000/-\ntherefore the amount belongs to the difference in stock should not be\ntaxed again, because by the act of Ld. Assessing officer it amounts to\ndouble taxation, which is not permissible in the Income Tax Laws.\nTherefore, it is hereby humbly prayed that the addition of Rs.\n25,00,000/- may kindly be deleted.\nAlternatively if this

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such

DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

Section 68 is discretionary and discretion must be used as per law and decided judgements and not according to the presumption. Since the assessee has submitted the entire details, books of accounts etc. and the AO did not reject the books of account of the assessee, hence the addition so made on presumption basis does not support in view

PRAKASH CHANDRA JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainsh. Prakash Chandra Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer 67-68, Hiran Magri, Sector Ward 1(1), Udaipur No. 08, Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpj 3696 E

70,000/- and confirmed the balance amount of addition of Rs.3,30,000/-. It is noticed that the Ld CIT(A) did not adjudicate the legal ground relating to validity of reopening of assessment. Hence the Tribunal, in the first round, restored the matter back to the file of Ld CIT(A) for adjudicating the legal ground. In the second

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

70 lacs the assessee made payments of Rs. 20 lacs in cash. Further it is worthwhile to mention here that the assessee had purchased this land on 14.07.2015 and started the work of land filling, levelling and development on 15.07.2018 and further sold the land on 09.11.2015. It means the assessee work of land filling, levelling and development last

SMT KRISHNA AGARWAL ,PALI vs. ITO WARD-1, PALI, PALI

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

section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. This ground is allowed.” e) ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT v/s Baldev Raj Charla reported in 121 TTJ 366 held as under: “Income from undisclosed sources- Addition under s. 69- Cash deposits – There being no material with