SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 2.3. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable but are mutually exclusive sections. It is not the choice of the revenue to invoke either of the two sections at its whims. The scope of the two sections has been legislated differently with a definitive purpose. 2.4. Reliance is placed in the following decisions

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

139 (Asr.)(SB)(Trib.)(158) In above cases, the courts have taken the view that, records maintained by Central Excise Authorities/ Various State Govt authorities are important piece of evidence. Applying the same principle if sales tax authorities have taken the view that the purchases are bogus and if assessee has accepted the same. The order of Sales Tax authorities

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

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

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

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

5\n6\nITA Nos.533 & 868/JPR/2024\nBhaskar Chouhan, Sikar\n3.3 Based on the information in possession of the Id. AO he\nnoted that the assessee maintained bank account with AXIS BANK\nhaving No.916020049304891 in the name of Murlidhar Impex\nduring the year under consideration. On perusal of the ITR filed, it\nis noticed that the Bank account is not disclosed

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

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

139 Taxmann.com the reassessment 143(3) by invoking section 145(3) and GP 406 proceedings on the rate was applied. Thereafter based on the information received informations supplied by Investigation from the Investigation Wing with respect to unverifiable Wing that assessee has purchases. obtained bogus LTCG Since the assessment was already whereas the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

bogus sale of TMT Bars to the said M/s Mamta\nTrading Company and accordingly the amount of credit is unexplained\nand ld. AO has rightly added the same. It was requested by ld. DR that\norder of ld. CIT(A) may be reversed and order of AO may be restored.\n7.\nPer contra, the ld. AR of assessee has filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, A person other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

bogus purchases ignoring the fact that assessee was involved in taking the accommodation entry from Rajendra Jain and Banwari Lal Jain Group. ‘’3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the deduction u/s 10AA/10A of the Act ignoring the fact that provisions of Section

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

5 third last para and onwards)\nThe Ld. AO further stated that the assessee stated that \"we have no correlation with the\nstatements made by Vijay Kumar Jain. We don't know him. You are requested to kindly provide\nus with the copy of his statement and grant us an opportunity to cross examine him. However,\nthe Ld. AO denied

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

5 to 7%. Whereas M/s Clarity 12%. Gold Pvt. Ltd. was dealing in precious and semi precious stones where GP rate is very high. N.K. Proteins Ltd. In this case, the Hon’ble In AY 2006-07, provisions of section (SC) 84 Gujrat High Court has 145(3) were not invoked. Moreover, the taxmann.com 95 intimated profit at 25% nature

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

5 to 7%. Whereas M/s Clarity 12%. Gold Pvt. Ltd. was dealing in precious and semi precious stones where GP rate is very high. N.K. Proteins Ltd. In this case, the Hon’ble In AY 2006-07, provisions of section (SC) 84 Gujrat High Court has 145(3) were not invoked. Moreover, the taxmann.com 95 intimated profit at 25% nature

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

139(1) of the Act as the assessee was liable to get its accounts audited and to file tax audit report which is clearly mentioned in the original return of income. We find that the original return of income is well within the period of limitation as it was before the expiry of due date on 30th September, 2010. Subsequently

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

139(1) of the Act as the assessee was liable to get its accounts audited and to file tax audit report which is clearly mentioned in the original return of income. We find that the original return of income is well within the period of limitation as it was before the expiry of due date on 30th September, 2010. Subsequently

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

139(1) of the Act as the assessee was liable to get its accounts audited and to file tax audit report which is clearly mentioned in the original return of income. We find that the original return of income is well within the period of limitation as it was before the expiry of due date on 30th September, 2010. Subsequently

KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTRUING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

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

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

bogus purchase. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Application contending that our High Court in that case while estimating the profit also held that in para 6 that “in our consider opinion, taking into account, the industry which is running the business, the addition which have been made on the Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. basis of GP which has been