SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchases were bogus has no legs to stand on. The finding of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the said liability which was converted into an unsecured loan and subsequently stood repaid has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. Further, the reliance placed by the ITATon the judgment of this Court in Shri Vardhman Overseas (supra

SHRI ANKUSH GOKHROO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Assessee Is An Individual & Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Diamond & Color Stones Through His Proprietorship Concern

bogus/ unverifiable and at the same time not doubting the sale. 5 Shri Ankush Gokhroo vs. ITO Therefore, the addition is unlawful, illegal and not justified as the same has been made with a confused state of mind. The assessee has submitted income tax return, bank account, copies of purchase bills and confirmations with the complete addresses of these creditors

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

bogus purchase for the period under consideration amounted to Rs. 164 crores was entirely based upon the information received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Regional Unit at Jaipur. This in turn was based upon information given by the Central Excise Department. While it is true that the court is conscious that the reassessment notice should not have been

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

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)

164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory 15 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed Vidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 265 (Bombay) Held: Where notice under

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

bogus transactions in the shares of KAFL also did not implicate the assessee and/or his broker. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes,demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 131 to both the brokers (No notices u/s 131 were issued to the broker) from whom shares were purchased and sold and statements were recorded. The AO also analyzed the balance sheet of M/s Ankur International Ltd. (The balance sheet of Bakra Pratisthan was not available before the AO, what to talk of its analysis) to justify

J C HOME TEX,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7, JAIPUR

bogus expenses. In grounds of appeal no. 1,4 & 1.5, assessee has challenged action of Id. CIT(A) in making all the additions primarily due to admission made by assessee during survey and thus not considering the plea of assessee regarding purchases worth Rs. 82,40,125/, being entered in books of accounts after survey In ground of appeal no.1.6

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus or ingenuine sales. The rejection of declared sale by A.O. while accepting all component of Trading Account is thus contradictory and only on that basis rejection of books of accounts cannot be held valid in law. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in arbitrarily holding that the assessee is engaged in unaccounted cash sales or other business from which

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

Section 131 to both the brokers (No notices u/s 131 were issued to the broker) from whom shares were purchased and sold and statements were recorded. The AO also analyzed the balance sheet of M/s Ankur International Ltd. (The balance sheet of Bakra Pratisthan was not available before the AO, what to talk of its analysis) to justify

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

Section 131 to both the brokers (No notices u/s 131 were issued to the broker) from whom shares were purchased and sold and statements were recorded. The AO also analyzed the balance sheet of M/s Ankur International Ltd. (The balance sheet of Bakra Pratisthan was not available before the AO, what to talk of its analysis) to justify

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)

164 taxmann.com 608 (Bombay) 18 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR Held: Where notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) was passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not under mandatory faceless mechanism, reopening proceedings initiated under section 148 were to be quashed 11. Vidhyadhar Shetty v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 10(38) in respect of capital gain arising from sale of shares, in view of fact that financial worth of said company was meager and, moreover, there was abnormal rise in price of shares, it could be concluded that assessee introduced her own unaccounted money in garb of long term capital gain and, thus, claim raised