SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessed its income at Rs. 2,10,63,154 which included bogus purchases

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 of the Act dated 06/09/2013 wherein the Assessing Officer applied G.P. rate @ 8.32% and accordingly enhanced the addition to Rs. 57,83,670/-. 8. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and vide order dated 06/2/2015, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowances by applying 15% of unverifiable purchases and consequently

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 of the Act dated 06/09/2013 wherein the Assessing Officer applied G.P. rate @ 8.32% and accordingly enhanced the addition to Rs. 57,83,670/-. 8. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and vide order dated 06/2/2015, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowances by applying 15% of unverifiable purchases and consequently

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

section 147/143(3) dated 17.12.2018, and the merged order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur in an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

purchases are not supported by the quantity details. The ld. AO did not make any enquiry on the material submitted by the assessee. He merely proceeded on statistical analysis and also irrelevant or/and wrong findings to make the addition on account of cash deposits. He neither found any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of the entries of sale

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

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 assessee firm is one\nof the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction of Rs.6,46,31,000/-\nwith M/s DRAIPL during the year under consideration which is liable to be added\nto the total income of the assessee and alleging that the same has not included in\nthe total income declared in income tax return and consequently

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

154 ITR 591 (Pat). It was held that cash credit – refusal by ITO to issue summon u/s 131 – revenue’s onus whether discharged – certificate creditor produced – law enjoins the issuance of summons in case certificate purported to have been granted by such creditors are produced before AO. Also kindly refer Vijeta Cement Pvt. Ltd. v/s JCIT

M/S DIAGOLD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked. 8. So far as merit of addition is concerned, the ld. AR has argued that the A.O. has not called the books of account for verification, therefore, rejection was without verifying the books of account. As per the ld AR purchases, sales, expenses were 100% vouched. Stocks were also maintained

M/S DIAGOLD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked. 8. So far as merit of addition is concerned, the ld. AR has argued that the A.O. has not called the books of account for verification, therefore, rejection was without verifying the books of account. As per the ld AR purchases, sales, expenses were 100% vouched. Stocks were also maintained

M/S DIAGOLD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked. 8. So far as merit of addition is concerned, the ld. AR has argued that the A.O. has not called the books of account for verification, therefore, rejection was without verifying the books of account. As per the ld AR purchases, sales, expenses were 100% vouched. Stocks were also maintained

M/S DIAGOLD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked. 8. So far as merit of addition is concerned, the ld. AR has argued that the A.O. has not called the books of account for verification, therefore, rejection was without verifying the books of account. As per the ld AR purchases, sales, expenses were 100% vouched. Stocks were also maintained

M/S DIAGOLD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Section 153C of the Act should have been invoked. 8. So far as merit of addition is concerned, the ld. AR has argued that the A.O. has not called the books of account for verification, therefore, rejection was without verifying the books of account. As per the ld AR purchases, sales, expenses were 100% vouched. Stocks were also maintained

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 10(38) of the Act. Various courts have held the above view. The addition has been made without bringing on record assessee’s involvement in earning the capital gains by the active collusion in the process of manipulating prices of companies in stock market. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.29,89,956/- as presumed commission payment

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

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

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

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

154 CTR 365 (Bombay) Case Law paper Book page 232-237 Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1979-80 - In relevant period assessee had tendered notes of Rs. 1000 denomination valuing Rs. 2 lakhs for encashment - There was no dispute about source of money nor about fact that there was sufficient balance on date