DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1,12,500. …………. ……………… 9. We can understand that they will not be available at one point of time. When the parties from whom the wool was purchased are not nomadics, it cannot be said that they have no permanent address and if they are the genuine parties, they should have some address. No person in the name of such party

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.

D. The procedure shall not apply to an assessee for an assessment year (iv) Where assessment is being made pursuant to a – i. search and seizure action under section 132; or ii. requisition made under section 132A; or iii. survey action 133A. (v) where 50 per cent or more of the income from such business of an assessee is claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

131 was also issued on 30.11.2019, however, again the assessee did not attend the proceedings. Considering the interest of natural justice another notices u/s 142(1) along with show cause notices were issued on 05.12.2019 and on 11.12.2019. Again, no compliance made by the assessee. After collecting information u/s 133(6) from concerned Bank, a specific show cause was issued

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)

D-178, Prop. M/s. Alka Gems, Ward 1(2), Kanti Chandra Road Bani Park, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADCPK0819N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025

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

131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, 26 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the tile and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General

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

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)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

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)

D. Panani (Bombay High Court) ITA No. 1543 of 2017 S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials and completion of 18 Shivam Readymix Pvt. Ltd. work

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

131 of the IT Act on 22-11-2018, it is gathered that M/s Perennial Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. received Rs. 7,95,00,000/- from GITS for the purchase of land and out of Rs. 2,90,00,000/- paid back on 24.08.2012 and remaining money of Rs.5,05,00,000/- was neither re-paid to assessee nor given

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

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

131(1)(d) of the Act was issued to the ADIT (I)-Kota, on 07.02.2019 to examine the transaction, in compliance to which a report along with the copies of statement of these persons were submitted by him vide letter no. 551 dt. 05.03.2019. (PB 17) 4. That, pursuant to the aforesaid Search & Seizure, the office of the Deputy Director

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus purchases has led\nto mushrooming of facilitators, commonly referred to as 'accommodation entry\nproviders who rotate funds for such purchase/sales in an attempt to authenticate\nsuch transactions. Many a times the entities doing genuine business also\nprovides accommodation bills and is it not necessary that the accommodation\nentry provider has to be exclusively into such practice. There are number

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

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)

1,87,500/- was made through banking channels for allotment of these shares, which stood debited in the bank account of the assessee on 04.04.2013. Assessee got them converted in D-mat and shares stood credited in the D-mat account of the assessee many months before the sale. From the above, it is evident that assessee has paid purchase

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

131 are derived from the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Section 75, read with Rules 1 to 14 of Order XXVI of the CPC, states that a commission can be issued, among other things, to examine witnesses, conduct local investigations, or examine accounts. He could have inquire that whether the land is rocky land and whether the masonry stone could

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

D-mat account and the sales were subject to STT. Thus all the conditions enumerated in section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam