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

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

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

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

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

MOHAN SINGH,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCRB JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

bogus purchase. It is here to submit that Ld AO has not quoted under which provision of\nIncome tax Act he has made such addition to total income and thus merely on his whims &\nfancies the purchase of Rs. 266591095/- is treated as unverifiable purchase and added to total\nincome and further CIT (A) on the ground of non submission

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

purchase of land. There is no witness of such cash payment. There is no evidence that the cash has actually changed hands. Moreover, how, when and to whom the alleged cash money was transferred also remain unanswered. It is true that other than the excel sheet, there is no evidence for undisclosed investment as discussed

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

bogus sales and unaccounted income of the assessee.” Whereas assessment has been completed and additions have been made on the following ground “It is clearly evident from the above that the sale claimed are in the round figure of thousand mostly. It is clarified that the rate of the Gold and silver changed on daily basis or couple

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchasing land, on which project had to be developed. 2.8 Hon’ble ITAT accepted the legal position that interest expenditure was otherwise allowable under section 36(1)(iii) having been incurred for the purpose of business, however it was of the view that the treatment has also to be in consonance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

purchase the peace of mind". 3.3 As per assessee's submission, the assessee has sold material worth Rs. 3,24,44,415/- from 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 and no such sale has occurred after 08.11.2016. The contention of the assessee is not found convincing as the material worth Rs. 3,24,44,415/- was sold in first 7 months

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 147 where assessment is to be reopened after four years. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances leading to the reopening of the assessment, I am satisfied that, the AO followed due procedure in reopening of 5 Anusha Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the case. Hence, I hold that, the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 is valid

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus and even 12\ncustomers whose documents were given by assessee to prove their identity, had\ndenied to have given their advances for purchase of gold from assessee It was\nfurther noted that assessee had no/negligible 'stock-in-trade' of gold as on 8-11-\n2016 and no orders were place on 8-11-2016 and 9-1-2016 after

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 b) Ratan Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 c) Vikram Goyal vs DCIT ITA 174/laipur/2017 etc d) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL VS. ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers e) Prateek Kathari Vs. ACIT (312/Jarpur/2015. 13.2 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the AO are without any reference

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 b) Ratan Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 c) Vikram Goyal vs DCIT ITA 174/laipur/2017 etc d) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL VS. ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers e) Prateek Kathari Vs. ACIT (312/Jarpur/2015. 13.2 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the AO are without any reference

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 b) Ratan Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 c) Vikram Goyal vs DCIT ITA 174/laipur/2017 etc d) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL VS. ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers e) Prateek Kathari Vs. ACIT (312/Jarpur/2015. 13.2 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the AO are without any reference