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

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) of the Act and accordingly delete the addition made by the AO. The order of ld. CIT (A) is set aside.” Hon’ble Jaipur bench of ITAT vide order dated 14.10.2021 in the case of Lt. Sh Satpal Singh vs ACIT in ITA No. 289/JP/2020 has also decided the issue on favour of assessee. Reliance is also

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

bogus expenses in order to reduce its profit/ taxable income. 9 Satya Narayan vs. ITO Therefore genuineness/ correctness of expenses related with these entities may be verified. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Income tax Act dated 27.06.2022 was served upon the appellant on 28.06.2022 & thereafter notices u/s 142(1) & questionnaires were issued and in response to same

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to interfere

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

Bench: Him.

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account Similar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Raj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench, 2.13. Attention is drawn towards Hon’ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that the assessee

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)

bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arranged bogus LTCG/STCL & unsecured loans etc to various beneficiaries/parties in lieu of commission in cash. Statement of Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has already been recorded before the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata on several occasions before. In his statement Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has admitted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries through

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

134-143) quashed the assessment order by placing reliance on Apex Court judgement in the case of Andaman Timber (cited supra) as entire assessment was based upon the statements of Sh. Mukesh Choksi, which were neither supplied to assessee nor was opportunity of cross examination was provided. The Ld. AO as well ld. CIT(A) have placed reliance on some

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n63\nITA No. 331/JPR/2017 & 435 to 440/JPR/2018\nITA No. 467,468 & 352/JPR/2018 & 145 & 151/JPR/2024\n4. The assessee

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n==End of OCR page 63==\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend

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 to Rs. 25,41,134

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 to Rs. 25,41,134

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 to Rs. 25,41,134

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

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

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed\nincome of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High\ncourts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases\n(CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP filed by the Revenue against

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

bogus only to give colour to non- genuine transaction as genuine transaction when all the transactions have been substantiated with purchase and sale register as well as stock register. 6. Because the L.d. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the appellant that it had changed its sales strategy in the later part of the FY 2015-16 whereby