JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 145(3), particularly when other ingredients of the transactions are undisputed. Next allegation to treat the purchases as bogus is that, the director of one of the concerns, M/s Clarity Gold (P) Ltd had admitted in a statement recorded u/s 132(4

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4) 40 R. P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale

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

bogus and the real transaction is as per \nsettlement.\nThese facts prove that the transactions as per the seized paper and as \nadmitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) were correct. In the seized paper \nalso it was mentioned that the laon is not to be repaid unless both parties agree. \nThis is further confirmed from the statement recorded

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4) would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale of equity shares of the listed companies

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

section\n153A of the Act and similarly undisclosed income of Rs. 306,00,000/-\non account of bogus expenditure was also included in returned income\nwhich is mentioned in seized paper number 17, 22 & 23 of exhibit 41 of\nparty A-1 from the residence of Shri Surinder Pal Singh Sahni. The\nshow cause notice was duly given and rule

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4) would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale of equity shares of the listed companies

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4) would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale of equity shares of the listed companies

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

4) would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale of equity shares of the listed companies

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

section \n153A of the Act and similarly undisclosed income of Rs. 306,00,000/- \non account of bogus expenditure was also included in returned income \nwhich is mentioned in seized paper number 17, 22 & 23 of exhibit 41 of \nparty A-1 from the residence of Shri Surinder Pal Singh Sahni. The \nshow cause notice was duly given and rule

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

132(4) and that recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act. 41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101/129 Taxman 416 and of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 132 of the Act was carried out in case of Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain Group by Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein it is found that this group was an entry provider indulging in providing accommodation entries pertaining to bogus purchases to various parties. Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain admitted the same in the statement recorded u/s 132(4

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 132 of the Act was carried out in case of Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain Group by Investigation Wing, Mumbai wherein it was found that this group was an entry provider indulging in providing accommodation entries pertaining to bogus purchases to various parties. Sh. Bhanwarlal Jain admitted the same in the statement recorded u/s 132(4

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)

4. With reference to your observation with regards to submission of trading account for bogus transactions and real and genuine transactions we wish to reiterate as was submitted before the ADIT, Jaipur II; that you are kindly requested to first clarify to us as to what is meant by the term Bogus Bills, according to use a bill

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)

section 260A (set aside) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT “I That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in sustaining addition u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act made by the AO at Rs. 13,00,000/- in the total income

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

purchase 53,475 sqr ft land at B-1 \nParvatipuram, Kota at the rate of Rs.400 per square for a total \nconsideration of Rs.2,13,90,000/-. And Rs.51,11,111/-was paid as first \ninstalment. These figures exactly match with the loose paper noting. And \nassessee has not denied the fact that the paper is not related