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

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 148 for AY 2015-16 is invalid, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings null and void. 4.7 Hon’ble ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of DCIT v. Vinay Agrawal[2025] 2 TMI 891 order dated 17.02.2025after considering theaforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Reopening of assessment - Period of limitation - Bogus purchases

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

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchases from a known entry operator and reversed a partial relief previously granted by the ITAT. The Gujarat High Court in the same matter emphasized that where the supplier is non-existent or not traceable, and where goods are not proved to be delivered, the entire claim of purchase is liable to be disallowed under sections

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

148A(d) of I.T. Act. Afterwards the assessee submitted detailed\nexplanation and evidence in support of its claim, but the ld. AO observed\nthat heavy payments have been received from M/s Mamta Trading\nCompany and its proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar has not filed the return of\nincome and accordingly these credits are unexplained and thereby added\nthe same

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

section 147 in the reason was typographical error, if considered correct, 46 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT non-observation of such serious typographical error by two senior officers i.e. (i) Range Head forwarding reason to approval authority with recommendation for approval and (ii) Pr. CIT, approving Authority. Non observation of such serious typographical error led to the conclusion that

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

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

purchases of Rs.26,76,210/- chargeable to tax\nin this case has escaped assessment within the meaning of provision of\nsection147oftheI.T. Act,1961forA.Y.2018-19. The case was reopened on the basis\nof on the basis of material available on record including reply/compliance of the\nassessee and as per clause (d) of Section 148A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and\nnotice

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

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

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

bogus sales or purchases on account of\nrevenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have\nbeen conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to\nbelief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment.\n10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

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)

148A(d), there is no discussion of sum of Rs.4,68,75,013/- and assessee is alleged 25 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR to have taken fictitious profit of Rs.5,12,17,312/- and has concluded that such amount is liable to be added u/s 68/69. Thereafter, in the show cause notice (APB 138) at para

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus rather it support the case of the assessee that its transactions are genuine. 4. It is submitted that both purchase & sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. are through Demat account, SEBI registered stock broker, through banking channel and nothing is brought on record by AO that transaction in these shares are accommodation entries. Neither the copy

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG. Therefore, the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 5.3.3 In respect of this ground, the appellant in his written submission made the following argument: 59. As stated in brief facts of the case that the Appellant purchased total

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus by ld.AO) cannot be treated as “asset” by any stretch of imagination. It is further submitted that such loss was incurred by assessee while carrying out trading transactions in stock exchange thus it cannot even be held as erosion of any asset as alleged. Without prejudice to above explanation to section 149(1) (b) does not include any term

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A(d) deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 14, 16 and 17] [In\nfavour of assessee]\n\nThe Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur bench in the identical case in ITA No. 425/JP/2017 in the\ncase of Sh. Navrattan Kothari Vs. ACIT, Jaipur vide order dt. 13.12.2017 has held as\nunder:-\n\n“....Therefore, in conjoint reading of provisions

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

148A(d) was\npassed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory\nfaceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to\nbe quashed.\nVidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 265\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer, same

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

148A(d) was\npassed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory\nfaceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to\nbe quashed.\nVidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 265\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer, same