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

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

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: a) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur

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

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: a) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\n\nHe also

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

purchased by M/s Udai Buildhome\nPrivate Limited on 06.11.2012, (iii) it was agreed upon to pay the remaining\namount till 30.11.2012, (iv) registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012\nThe assessing authority has also noted in the satisfaction note that M/s Udai\nBuildhome Private Limited has executed a sale agreement with the sellers for sale\nof their immovable property situated at Village

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)

bogus purchase and income had escaped assessment. Therefore, appellant case falls in above exception and instruction numbering 2/2008 dated 22-02-2008 does not apply. 5.12 Keeping in view the facts in entirety, as discussed above and appellants failure to establish that the purchases are genuine it is held that the books of the appellant were not tenable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

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 145(3) of the Act, and 25% amounting to Rs. 8,77,442/- of the alleged purchases of Rs.35,09,770/- added back by the AO to the business income of the appellant are held to be justified and addition on this account stands confirmed. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of appeal raised by the appellant is dismissed. 6. Ground

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

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 the person referred to in section 153A, then

M/S CLARITY GOLD P. LTD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

section 145(3) of the I.T Act. It may further be seen that in jewellery 14 M/s Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur unit, nizami unit and partly in Silver Star unit, the assessee is manufacturing gold and silver jewellery but no regular manufacturing records or consumption records are maintained so as to verify the consumption

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)

section 133A. The statements so recorded have no sanctity in the eyes of law and is illegal and deserves to be ignored. Copy of affidavit duly notarized by Sh. Raghu Dutt Tiwari on 19.6.2009 and submitted before the District Magistrate and copy of which is already with the income tax Department is enclosed herewith which will clarify our submission

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

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 to in section 153A, then, the books

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are hereby applicable as the books of accounts are not reliable, Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition of Rs. 5,72,667/- (12% of Rs. 7,03,93,153 declared and accepted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchasing and\nselling the goods from /to Kolkata therefore we have a large number of contacts\nthere and it was easier for us to arrange loans there from. Therefore, in the\nAnswer to Q.No. 33 of statements of Shri Sanjay Karnani, there is no such fact as\nobserved by the Ld. AO\n\nIn response to subsequent Questions also, Shri

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part