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

dividend history and other financial parameters to substantiate that there was no term capital loss against receipt of cash money. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly concluded that the addition was made on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, the human conduct and preponderance of probabilities. In view of the above facts and circumstances

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

dividend history and other financial parameters to substantiate that there was no term capital loss against receipt of cash money. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly concluded that the addition was made on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, the human conduct and preponderance of probabilities. In view of the above facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income of the appellant. The appellant is a trader and not a manufacturer of the oil in which the appellant is dealing. The books of accounts of the appellant have been rejected in the assessment order. During the survey proceedings the appellant has already offered an additional income of Rs.1

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

purchases and assessee firm is one\nof the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction of Rs.6,46,31,000/-\nwith M/s DRAIPL during the year under consideration which is liable to be added\nto the total income of the assessee and alleging that the same has not included in\nthe total income declared in income tax return and consequently

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend in question. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court were finally taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and the SLP filed by the revenue was dismissed. This Tribunal in case of DCIT

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

dividends and\nsound financial conditions. All the transactions of the sale of shares have\nresulted into huge abnormal profits, which is not possible in normal course of\ninvestment. However, evidence indicating sham transactions by all the investors\nwere not found by the Department, but the pattern of investment, the modus\noperandi adopted is largely same for 100% of investors

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: "We and our family firms namely M/s. Assam Supari Traders and M/s. Balaji Perfumes generally try to record the transactions made in respect 55 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. of purchase, manufacturing and sales in our regular books

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

dividends and sound financial conditions. All the transactions of the sale\nof shares have resulted into huge abnormal profits, which is not possible in normal course of\ninvestment. However, evidence indicating sham transactions by all the investors were not\nfound by the Department, but the pattern of investment, the modus operandi adopted is largely\nsame for 100% of investors

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)

deemed sufficient. It is crucial that the assessing officer's belief is fair and not based on extraneous or fallacious reasoning. 1.4. Before issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessing officer must apply their reasoning skills to draw conclusions from new or existing information. The term "reason to believe" refers to the belief that prompts the assessing officer

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

bogus purchases.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

dividends and sound financial conditions. All the transactions of the sale of shares have resulted into huge abnormal profits, which is not possible in normal course of investment. However, evidence indicating sham transactions by all the investors were not found by the Department, but the pattern of investment, the modus operandi adopted is largely same for 100% of investors