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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 68 can be invoked. 8. Examining the present case even on these parameters, first requirement is not relevant

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

8,85,08,618/- outstanding as on 31.03.2014. The assessee gave details of specific credit entries / liabilities outstanding as on 31.03.2014 in Balance Sheet objecting to the AO’s action by submitting that in the instant case, no addition could be made either under section 41 or section 68

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) That it is further

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 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8

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 stood discharged. 7. The assessee also contested the addition under section 69C, stating that no evidence was brought on record by the AO to establish that any commission was actually paid. The alleged figure of Rs. 1,17,900/- was presumptive and based on the generic modus operandi recorded by the Investigation Wing. 8

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

8 | P a g e conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the AO. Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of the order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. For example, if the AO has adopted one of the two or more courses permissible in law and it has resulted

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:-

8. Learned Additional CIT DR on the other hand relied on the order of CIT (A) 9. Who have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and case laws cited before us. Admittedly the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 19,00,000/- by invoking provisions of 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 the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs. 8

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. The impugned order U/s 263 is illegal and most unjustified, as the same is not based on any valid material or legal evidence whatsoever on records, but the same

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

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 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, 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

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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

68 of the Act. 5.0 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in treating the entire unexplained cash deposit as income of appellant without considering the explanation made by appellant. 5.1 Without prejudice to the above grounds, based on the facts and the circumstances

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