SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

carried forward loss against long term capital gain earned by the assessee which tantamount to double addition. In the computation of income the assessee has shown speculation profit of Rs. 9,67,665/-page no. 3 of paper book. The speculation income was set off against the brought forward speculation losses of financial year

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

carried out by way of issuance of summon u/s 131 and notice 133(6) of the Act. 8.2. During the proceedings, assessee was asked to produce the principal persons or persons related to concerns from whom assessee have made purchases. But assessee has denied to produce them. The summon were issued to these parties. Not only Inspector of this office

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) and no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued. Thereafter Ld. A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03-2019 after recording following reasons: “Your letter dated 11.04.2019 wherein you have requested to provide grounds of reasons for opening the case. In this regard

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

carry forward of the capital loss nor had any capital profits for the year against which he could have set off the impugned loss. So the theory of claiming bogus short term capital loss falls flat. Here, we have a case in hand, wherein only on the basis of transacting in the name of the scrip (SMIL), tax liability

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S PYRAMID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus and has been deliberated created so as to reduce speculative profit. It was further held by the AO that even if the transaction has been carried out in a proper exchange with proper bills, then also it doesnot make it genuine. It was held that mere paper companies booking losses and assessee also purchasing losses is again

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

forward in an attempt to divert the attention of the first appellate authority from the core issue without producing any documentary evidence to contravene the findings of the Assessing Officer which in turn is based on the order of SEBI. Therefore, in view of the prevailing circumstances, this Ground No. 4 is dismissed. 8. It is apt to mention here

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

forward business loss was already at a staggering amount of Rs. 1,39,74,664, without considering the current year's losses. Therefore, the allegations against the assessee-appellant lack a logical basis. 2.3. It is worth noting that there are only two situations in which CCM is acceptable. The first is when the broker identifies a genuine mistake

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

carried out in the case the appellant on 08.02.2018 and no assessment for the AY 2013-14 was pending when notice u/s 153A of the Act was served upon the appellant. In fact, the case of appellant was assessed u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration and therefore was not pending as on the date of search. In search

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

carried out in the case the appellant on 08.02.2018 and no assessment for the AY 2013-14 was pending when notice u/s 153A of the Act was served upon the appellant. In fact, the case of appellant was assessed u/s 143(3) for the year under consideration and therefore was not pending as on the date of search. In search

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

forwarded sundry credits of previous year. As per normal business norms sundry creditors for goods are never outstanding for more than 2-3 months depending on the trade, hence any point of time sundry credits should never be more than the entire purchases made during the year. As per common understanding sundry credits exists because the seller of the goods

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

forwarded to the counsel of the assessee for necessary action. 4. Thus, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is solely attributable to the bona fide mistake on part of staff of the assessee and is absolutely inadvertent and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of assessee. 5. That, the assessee always has acted bonafide

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

forwarded to the counsel of the assessee for necessary action. 4. Thus, it is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is solely attributable to the bona fide mistake on part of staff of the assessee and is absolutely inadvertent and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of assessee. 5. That, the assessee always has acted bonafide

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

loss of assessee.\n\nWhereas, in the present case, both the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and\nconsequential notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022 were issued\nby the JAO (i.e. local jurisdictional officer) and not in the prescribed faceless\nmanner. It is thus submitted that reassessment proceedings so completed are not\naccordance with

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

forward losses with the other clients. The purpose of shifting profit was to introduce unaccounted money under the grab of trading profit. To provide fictitious profits and losses book entries, share brokers charged client a commission ranging from 1% to 3%. 19 Spectrum Foods Limited vs ITO 4.2.5 The letter mentioned earlier accompanied by a CD that contained the list

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 share application , relevant extracts of which are reproduced here as under: “.6.1 On facts also, the assessee has produced before the Assessing Officer copy of share application, confirmation of the cash creditors, copy of PAN, copy of Board resolution, copy of Director’s report, auditor’s report, copy of balance sheet, copy of P&L account, copy of bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus bills but without independent application of mind to the information renders the reopening void. (vi) CIT Vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 41 DTR 98 (Del) Reassessment-Reason to believe-Reopening on directions of superior officers-50-called reasons recorded by the AO for reopening assessee's assessment comprises mere information received from Dy. Director of IT (Inv.) followed

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law." Ratio of these cases fully apply on the facts of the present

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BEAWAR, WARD-1 BEAWAR vs. M/S. MANIRTANAM GEMS PVT. LTD, CHHAJER SADAN, NEAR CHIMAN SINGH LODHA SCHOOL, OUT SIDE NEHRU GATE, BEAWAR, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) requested the AO to examine 11 parties from whom the assessee has made the purchases during the year and which was not 7 ITA No. 539/JP/2017 & CO No. 29/JP/2017 ITO vs. M/s Maniratnam Gems Pvt. Ltd. verified during the course