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

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus billing to various genuine entities\nthrough routing of unaccounted income. Further the assessee had\nmade purchases from various shell entities some of the examples\nare M/s Rajiv Commercial Private Limited & M/s Ramdiha\nMercantile Private Limited. Your honour kind attention is invited\nto the fact that the above SCN as purely based on information\nonly, without any independent application

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

120 days as prescribed by the Act read with order passed by the Hon’ble apex court in suo moto Write petition (Civil) no. 3/2020 dated 27.04.2021. Thus the delay of 58 days filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records

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)

bogus which shall be reduced from sales shown by the appellant for the year. Closing Stock 5,25,60,282.42 5,25,60,282.42 CIT(A) made no findings for closing stock which means he has accepted stock . Total Credit side 26,95,43,458.98 20,18,84,458.98 Trading Account Debit side Opening stock

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned in column (3) of the said Schedule

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

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

section by invoking a section for which satisfaction is required to be by “Assessing Officer” and the assessing officer after considering the detailed reply and documents was satisfied about the ingredients of section 68. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- a) ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s MotisonsGobal Private Limited vs ACIT ITA No 388/ JP/2017 order dated

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)

Section 68 of the Act was not sustainable after due appreciation of evidence on record, on relevant considerations, and on sound reasoning—Finding of Appellate Authorities did not suffer from any perversity—No substantial question of law was involved in Appeal—Assessee’s appeal dismissed (ii) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. PUSHPAMALPANIHIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN : JAIPUR BENCH

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)

120(Raj.) it has been held that In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nAssessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

120 and 124, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\n- Assessment - Issue of notice (Notice under section 143(2)) - Assessment year\n2011-12 - Assessing Officer, ITO Ward -5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under\nsection 143(2)\nHowever, Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata\ncompletedassessmentwithout issuing notice under section 143(2) Assessee\nraised additional\nground before Tribunal challenging jurisdiction

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)

120(Raj.) it has been held that In each trading account, only four entries were there of opening stock, purchase on debit side, sales and closing stock on credit side. The quantum and value of purchases and sales had not been in dispute inasmuch as they were held to be fully vouched. Value of opening stock also cannot be disputed

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

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

120, 1st Floor, Hari Marg, Vs. Tax, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJJPS8943G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/01/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals