ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

purchases has been accepted which can be on account of sales made by appellant and thus out of declared sales some sales cannot be held as bogus or ingenuine sales. 3. The cash deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

cash deposits without any reason. She neither found any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of the entries of sale, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of bogus purchases

ACIT, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE vs. BALVIR SINGH TOMAR, ADARSH NAGAR

bogus cash receipts.\nSearch was carried out in the NIMS group, and evidence emerged\nthat the entire group was engaged in generating out of books cash from\nboth hospital and medical college. Thus, the assessee had to deposit his\nunaccounted cash in the bank during demonetization and he has been\n23\nITA No. 283/JP/2024\nACIT vs Balvir Singh Tomar\nattempting

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases book, stock register, etc. for escaping from tax liability for its unaccounted cash being SBNs and under these circumstances, it has not been relied upon the books of accounts of the assessee for the year under consideration. On comparison of Cash deposited during the FY 2016-17 and Cash deposited during the FY 2015- 16, ld. AO noticed that

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

purchaser not established more so when the assessee is bullion trader not a retail jewellery trader. He further observed that the assessee withdrawn cash Rs 3,00,000/- on 06-08-2016 and Rs 5,00,000/- on 08-09-2016 whereas, the assessee has enough cash balance in cash book. Further, the assessee has not submitted the cash book

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

bogus & false and only made to generate cash in hand in books of account for adjustment of cash deposited by assessee during demonetization period which is nothing but the undisclosed income of the assessee earned from undisclosed sources and shown by the assessee under the grab of cash sales, advance from customer and receipt from debtors by tailoring sales

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

purchases has not been doubted by the lower authorities. 2.10. Cash sales are one of the common practices in jewellery sector. The law nowhere prohibits cash sales. The assessee by selling the same in cash has not violated any of the provisions of the Act. 16 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO 2.11. Ld. AO rejected the books of accounts without

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account\nSimilar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of\nRaj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench (DPB 108-166)\nAttention is drawn towards Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case\nof Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

deposited Rs. 2,79,00,000/- in bank accounts from 10-11-2016 to 31-12-2016. The copy of cash book from the period 01-11-2016 to 31-12-2016 is at paper book page 54-60. The assessee surrendered Rs. 15 Lakh before D.D.I.T Kota under P.M.G.K.Y scheme just to purchase the peace of mind

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposits. We agree with the findings of ld. CIT(A) that the AO has not brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor any evidence indicating that such sales was bogus and merely having some doubt by twisting the data and giving some findings which are not alone sufficient to justify the addition

MUKESH SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus, quantitative details, details of month wise purchase and sales, were submitted and not found any defect by the assessing officer. The ld. AR of the assessee drawn our 17 Mukesh Soni vs. ITO attention to the detailed letter dated 28.11.2019 where in the assessee has submitted following important details so as to substantiate the cash deposit

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

cash credits could not be proved, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 1,12,500. …………. ……………… 9. We can understand that they will not be available at one point of time. When the parties from whom the wool was purchased are not nomadics, it cannot be said that they have no permanent address and if they

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

deposit cash daily in the bank, when the cash was as per the cash book which is the part of books of account and has not been rejected, the cash was supported with cash books sales, ledger etc. then how the ld. AO can doubted on her accepted action. 4.7. The ld. AO has not brought any evidence on record

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

deposited in Bank Accounts(s). b) Sale bills/sales register of the basis of which cash was generated. c) Purchase bills/purchase register for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17. d) Stock Register for the F.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17, e) Bank Statement for the year under consideration. 3.3. The submission justifying the cash by the assessee was not acceptable on the following

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

cash deposited during demonetization.:- vide entire para 2 as above. The ld. AO has not brought any evidence on record that the sales is not genuine, the ld. AO has not proved that the purchase was bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

deposits in bank before the sales could happen was wrong and did not survive. This shows that the sales of the assessee in cash were genuine. The learned AO has wrongly doubted that sales being in round figure. He is wrong in doubting that the sales for non containing the details of purchases as the same was not required under

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

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

cash of Rs. 3.15 crore was sourced and was ultimately deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee. It is further noted that during the festive season of Deepawali from 27-10-2016 to 30-10- 2016 the assessee had made significant cash sales of Rs. 1,01,47,305/-. Moreover, the assessee has regularly made cash sales during

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

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

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

purchases from farmers and sales to wholesellers in the name and style of M/s Gautam Trading whereas in the assessment order, the AO has made discussion about the cash deposits and credits in the current account of the appellant. It is further stated that it is a case of borrowed satisfaction as the AO has relied upon the report