DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Assessing Officers as well as the orders passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Assessing Officers as well as the orders passed by CIT under Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

purchases were made in this case from Gemini Commerce Pvt Ltd. The name of Gemini is mentioned in the list of shell companies received from the ACIT vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat & Ors Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). During the course of search operation, simultaneous search operation was also conducted in the case of Sh. Arpit Khandelwal who was Director

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

purchases were made in this case from Gemini Commerce Pvt Ltd. The name of Gemini is mentioned in the list of shell companies received from the ACIT vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat & Ors Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). During the course of search operation, simultaneous search operation was also conducted in the case of Sh. Arpit Khandelwal who was Director

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

purchases were made in this case from Gemini Commerce Pvt Ltd. The name of Gemini is mentioned in the list of shell companies received from the ACIT vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat & Ors Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). During the course of search operation, simultaneous search operation was also conducted in the case of Sh. Arpit Khandelwal who was Director

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

purchases were made in this case from Gemini Commerce Pvt Ltd. The name of Gemini is mentioned in the list of shell companies received from the ACIT vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat & Ors Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). During the course of search operation, simultaneous search operation was also conducted in the case of Sh. Arpit Khandelwal who was Director

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

block assessment under section 1534 of the Act, 1961, hid held that in case of completed assessment/unabated assessment, in absence of any incriminating material, no additional can be made by the AD and the AO has no jurisdiction to re-open the completed assessment. In paragrapha 15 & 16, it is held as under. 15 16 When, the very purpose

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

block assessment under section 153A; ii.) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii.) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

block assessment under section 153A; ii.) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii.) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

block return. 4. It may be mentioned here that earlier vide order dated 27.05.2002 the Learned Assessing Officer had completed assessment u/s 158BF read with 3 Lunawat Gems Corporation vs. DCIT section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), at Rs. 87,45,810/- on the basis of the following two additions as under:- “* Addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

block assessment under\nsection 153A;\nii.) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\niii.) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the\njurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’taking into\nconsideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search\nand the other material available with the AO including the income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

block assessment under\nsection 153A;\n\nii.) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated;\n\niii.) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the\njurisdiction to assess or reassess the ‘total income’taking into\nconsideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search\nand the other material available with the AO including

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

purchased by M/s Udai Buildhome\nPrivate Limited on 06.11.2012, (iii) it was agreed upon to pay the remaining\namount till 30.11.2012, (iv) registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012\nThe assessing authority has also noted in the satisfaction note that M/s Udai\nBuildhome Private Limited has executed a sale agreement with the sellers for sale\nof their immovable property situated at Village

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchasing and\nselling the goods from /to Kolkata therefore we have a large number of contacts\nthere and it was easier for us to arrange loans there from. Therefore, in the\nAnswer to Q.No. 33 of statements of Shri Sanjay Karnani, there is no such fact as\nobserved by the Ld. AO\n\nIn response to subsequent Questions also, Shri

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra