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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering the facts of the case?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was right in ignoring the fact that the assessee was involved in dealing of purchase and sale of shares in the scrip of Eins

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

deem it an appropriate to seek any information from the department/Assessing Officer and presented a very lengthy reply to the show cause notice, it cannot be said that the department/Assessing Officer had no communication of any such information from the assessee or that on said account, the assessee had no reasonable opportunity of being heard. 21. Show cause Notice issued

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus or not genuine but merely stated that the transaction could have been verified by the contract notes from the brokers, challan etc. Revision order of the PR. CIT Set Aside. Also refer Subrata Kumar Nag v/s PR. CIT 127 TTJ 238(Kol), Rajiv Arora v/s PR. CIT (Supra). 18 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus or not genuine but merely stated that the transaction could have been verified by the contract notes from the brokers, challan etc. Revision order of the PR. CIT Set Aside. Also refer Subrata Kumar Nag v/s PR. CIT 127 TTJ 238(Kol), Rajiv Arora v/s PR. CIT (Supra). 18 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus or not genuine but merely stated that the transaction could have been verified by the contract notes from the brokers, challan etc. Revision order of the PR. CIT Set Aside. Also refer Subrata Kumar Nag v/s PR. CIT 127 TTJ 238(Kol), Rajiv Arora v/s PR. CIT (Supra). 18 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

dividends to the shareholders cannot be taken as a basis for treating the investment as non- genuine. 8. It is also humbly submitted that out of these seven investors, four investors sold their holding in AY 2011-12 Details of which is as follows: Changes in shareholding No of No of Sold to whom/ shares as shares as Purchased from

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus gifts. \nThe Hon'ble Finance Minister has made this intention clear by referring to the Gift \ntax Act, 1958, and by adding exception for gift received from relatives on the \noccasion of marriage etc. It is also noteworthy that like gift tax, the basic \nexemption limit has also been prescribed in the section and various exceptions \nprovided in section

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

dividend. The Revenue however relied on a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(8) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponded to Section 119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

deemed fit. The information furnished by the Assessee's Counsel was examined and placed on record. 5.2 The ld. AO in the assessment proceeding noted that the assessee has shown unsecured loan from various entities including M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. The year wise detail of the same is tabulated as under: S. No. Related to AY Amount

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

deemed fit. The information furnished by the Assessee's Counsel was examined and placed on record. 5.2 The ld. AO in the assessment proceeding noted that the assessee has shown unsecured loan from various entities including M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. The year wise detail of the same is tabulated as under: S. No. Related to AY Amount