SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

148 of the IT Act, 1961 dated 08.04.2021 to the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income on 21.05.2021 declaring his total income for the year under consideration at Rs. 9,17,230/-. Thereafter, in compliance to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decision dated 04.05.2022 in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal and consequent

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued notice under section 148 after issuing notice under section 148A(b) and passing order under section 148 A(d). Notice under section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2022. Copies

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

purchase and sale of real estate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take 25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than making addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is sustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

purchase and sale of real\nestate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take\n25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than\nmaking addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is\nsustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

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 entry providing activity of the Banka Group. Therefore, proposal for remedial action was after the search and it was tangible material based upon which the reopening of was done. The ld. AO after analyzing the information proposal was mover for action u/s. 148 which was got approved as per provision of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

purchases and\nassessee is one of the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction with\nM/s DRAIPL to the extent of Rs.6,46,31,000/- in the relevant assessment year\nand accordingly reached to the satisfaction that income to this extent has escaped\nassessment.\n\nFrom perusal of above, it is crystal clear that information, based on which notice\nu/s

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148 of the Act. The case of the\nassessee was reopened on the reason that the assessee has claimed bogus Long\nTerm Capital Gain of Rs.15,95,000/- and has not disclosed the capital gain earned\nand income escaped assessment. Whereas, the assessment order was passed taking\ninto account that the assessee has invested Rs.15,95,000/- in purchase

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

148, section 149, section 151 and\nsection 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\nA person other than

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

bogus\nentities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits—Revenue appealed against appellate\norder on merits—Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment—\nTribunal upheld assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there\nwas no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-\ncondition for issuing

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

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 than the person referred

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus LTCG - Objections raised\nby assessee to initiation of reassessment proceedings were rejected - Whether, since\nreasons recorded for reopening were based solely on transactions of third party and\nfailed to allude to any material implicating assessee in alleged manipulation of penny\nscrips, reassessment notice under section 148 and order disposing objections were to\nbe quashed - Held, yes [Paras

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

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee’s failure to challenge\nthe same in accordance with the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court\nin GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]:\n1. Background of the Case\nA search and seizure action in the case of Mukesh Banka was conducted

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

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee’s failure to challenge\nthe same in accordance with the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court\nin GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]:\n\n1. Background of the Case\n\nA search and seizure action in the case of Mukesh Banka

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

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee’s failure to challenge\nthe same in accordance with the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court\nin GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]:\n1. Background of the Case\nA search and seizure action in the case of Mukesh Banka was conducted

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

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

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchase and sale of shares and capital gain/loss made therein and Assessing Officer after considering said details had conclusively taken a view on same, reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 based on reconsideration of same material that was available at time of original proceedings would tantamount to change of opinion and thus would be liable to be set aside

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

148 by the Pr. CIT, only the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are available. Considering this it can be said that report of investigation wing was not considered by the Range head while moving forward reasons to the Pr. CIT and by Pr. CIT while granting permission of issuance of reason.  With reference to the allegation of fictious transactions

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.

148 was issued on 22.03.2017. The ld. AO received the information that the appellant had purchased goods worth Rs. 35,09,770 from three concerns of Bhanwar Lal Jain group and based thereon a show cause notice was issued for treating the said purchase as bogus. In response thereto the appellant had submitted confirmations, bank statements of the parties, their