ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sale and purchases to substantiate her deposits. Based on the above reasons and considering the provision of section 68 of the Act ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 44,61,000/- in the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

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

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 to escape inquiry/ interrogation by the Deptt;\niii) As per the inquiry reports of local Patwari and the Inspector of this\noffice. there was no development activity was done on the land in\nquestion.\nTherefore, the purchases and development expenses claimed by the\nassessee have not been verified and hence the same were proposed to be\ndisallowed. In response

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase, there is a judgment of this Co-ordinate Bench and looking to the same set of facts and circumstances and ratio of decisions taken by the Co-ordinate Bench may please be considered and accordingly ground Nos. 3 & 4 be decided. In addition the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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

Bench: Him.

131 (summoning purchasers) or Section 133(6) (calling for information) to substantiate the allegation that sales were fabricated or non-genuine. 2.6. Ld. AO simply stated that the assessee did not provide the phone numbers of the person to whom sales were made. Also, that no confirmation was received of the sales having been made. It is submitted that there

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

131 of the 1961 Apt. of a notice under\nsubsection Ay of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or\nunder sub section 1 of section 142 of 1961 Act was issued to produce, or cause\nto be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to\nproduce, or cause

SMT ANJU LASHKERY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 has discharged the assessee from the initial onus cost on her, and therefore, the addition on the account of bogus purchases amounting Rs. 15,39,905/- is not sustainable.” 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that this is the second round of appellate proceedings and in the first round, the matter has reached before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

131, has no evidentary value and not being conclusive, no addition can be made merely on that basis). On the contrary, it is discernible from his findings in all the 4 cases, where he has granted relief, he has extensively dealt with the merits of each case for examining the impounded documents, explanation of assessee, remand report and rejoinder

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Section 145(3) of the Act. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed the ground No. 1. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 3. In ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition of Rs. 90,785/- by declaring purchases of Rs. 3,63,139/- as bogus purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

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

131(1A) of the Act in which he supported the version to have provided accommodation entries of non genuine purchases and non genuine sales to various parties. In addition thereto, incriminating material contained in certain digital devices was also taken into consideration. 21. As regards purchases, on behalf of the assessee-appellant, it has been submitted that out of total

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

Bogus penny stocks capital gains: Section 131\nstatement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference\nagainst the assessee when the documentary evidence in the form of contract notes,\nbank statements, STT payments, etc. prove genuine purchase

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 [

131(3) of the Act. From the examination of said books of account, certain glaring discrepancies were noticed and vide letter dated 18-12-2017, the assessee was confronted with those discrepancies and 6 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta required to explain the same. The ld. AO on examination of Guar Gum Account, observed that stock

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more particularly when no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the department to hold that assessee had introduced his undisclosed income in the garb

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

131 that they\nwere merely an operator and buying shares by using the money provided by\nother operators for creating bogus entry of long term capital gains- Held that\nassessee produced all relevant records and evidences right from the purchase\nbills, certificates issued by the registrar about the change of name, the\ncommunication between the assessee and the seller