SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustices. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law, the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then

SUNIL MODI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

bogus, is non-genuine is a sham transaction and that no actual purchases were made from both the parties. 2.2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in disallowing 25% of the aforesaid purchase of Rs. 1,01,64,537/- amounting

SUNIL MODI ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

bogus, is non-genuine is a sham transaction and that no actual purchases were made from both the parties. 2.2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in disallowing 25% of the aforesaid purchase of Rs. 1,01,64,537/- amounting

SUNIL MODI ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

bogus, is non-genuine is a sham transaction and that no actual purchases were made from both the parties. 2.2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in disallowing 25% of the aforesaid purchase of Rs. 1,01,64,537/- amounting

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

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

rectification u/s 154 of the Act (though\nnot conceding) instead of invoking Section 263. In this regard kindly refer\nto the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 286 CTR (SC) 113,\nwherein it is held that:\n“9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on\ndifferent authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed

MOHAN SINGH,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCRB JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

rectification\norder passed u/s 154 of the Act is an appealable order in itself, distinct from the\nimpugned assessment order under challenge in the present appeal. If the appellant has any\ngrievance against the same, he is free to file an appeal before the CIT (A) against that\nrectificationorder.\nAs such, the ground of appeal no. 3, being not related

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

rectification order dt. 06.08.2013 u/s 154 of the IT Act i.e. after about 21 months of filing the appeal by assessee against order dt. 14.11.2011, ignoring the law laid down by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (245 ITR 527). 4. Additional and legal ground of appeal: Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in not allowing remaining depareciation

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

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)

154 ITR 148 (SC), which emphasized the concept of substance over form. The modus operandi adopted by the assessee by acquiring Losses or acquiring Profits with tacit connivance with the Brokers through Client Code Modifications without paying any taxes or avoid declaring true Profits is nothing but a colourable device as cited by Hon'ble SC Judgment. "The taxing authority

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

purchases and sales of Supari, Gutka and other items dealt by our firms is not entered and shown in the regular books of accounts maintained by our firms." 65. Therefore, there was a clear admission by the Assessees in Smt. Dayawanti Gupta (supra) there that they were not maintaining regular books of accounts and the transactions were not recorded therein