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 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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

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 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

90,254/- I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2016-17 2. 2014-15 69/Jodh/2022 Rs.5,30,38,860/- 3. 2015-16 70/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,26,50,941/- 4. 2016-17 71/Jodh/2022 Rs. 2,07,00,717/- Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order

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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

68, 69, 69A to 69D of the Act. However, additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of rough noting made on loose sheets of papers unless some independent and corroborative materials to prove irrefutably that the said noting reveal either unaccounted income or unaccounted investment or unaccounted expenditure of the assessee. Further the seized documents in the case

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

90,510/- was booked as expenditure after deducting amount of interest received from amount of interest paid. Same practice was adopted in AY 2016-17 when interest paid was Rs. 10,89,23,556 and interest received was Rs. 2,51,33,962/- and interest expenses net of interest received was booked as expenditure in P/L account. No such addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

90 Lakhs was transferred by Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2012, out of which it paid ₹ 75 Lakhs to the appellant against the transaction which it had entered with the appellant, it cannot be assumed that the source of this amount is the amount deposited in the bank account of Jagdamba Trading, more

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

68 of the act. Therefore, the ground of appeal no.1 taken by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 2.7 As regards the Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR mainly contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case the AO has rightly made the addition. Placing strong reliance on the findings of the AO, she urged the addition made

RITU ROAD LINES,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-02, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ritu Road Lines, The Dcit, Plot No.12-14, Nakoda V Central Circle-2, Jodhpur. Industrial Area, Basni, S Jodhpur – 342001. Pan: Aaafr9440D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08/11/2023

2 Ritu Road Lines [A] relevant para 6 & 7 of the assessment order are reproduced hereasunder : “6. During the course of assessment proceedings, statement of Shri Hitendra Goyal, partner of the assessee firm were recorded. In his statement, Shri Hitendra Goyal, Partner of the assessee firm admitted to surrender Rs. 15,00,000/- undisclosed income on account of scrap sale

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

2 TO 4\n12. In these grounds of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that\nld. AO has disallowed claim of direct and indirect expenses. The\nassessee has made a claim of direct expenses to the extent of\nRs. 10,67,531/- and indirect expenses of Rs. 4,21,933/-. The ld.\nAO has disallowed this claim for want

MANOHAR SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, JODHPUR

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

Section 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act being premature at this stage, both the grounds are dismissed. 6. The ground No. 7 raised by the appellant is regarding charging of interest amounting to Rs. 24,49.836/- u/s 234B of the Act. This being consequential in nature, the AO is directed to allow relief

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

68 years, son of Somabhai Lakhubhai Patel identified by PAN, ACJPP495A presently residing at Address Plot No. 338, Sector No. 8B, CH Road, Gandhinagar, Gujarat-382007 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1) That I was appointed as the official liquidator of Adarsh Credit Co-Operative Society Limited vide order dated 6th December 2018 issued under section

ADARSH CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,AHMEDABAD. vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

68 years, son of Somabhai Lakhubhai Patel identified by PAN, ACJPP495A presently residing at Address Plot No. 338, Sector No. 8B, CH Road, Gandhinagar, Gujarat-382007 do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 1 NDIA 1) That I was appointed as the official liquidator of Adarsh Credit Co-Operative Society Limited vide order dated 6th December 2018 issued