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

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

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

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt.\n4. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)\n[DOD:05.07.2017]\nCash Credits\nCompany Share application money Issuance of shares\nGenuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee\nNon-appearance of such parties before Assessing Officer irrelevant – Deletion

M/S. G.B.IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

194 (Del) • Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. ACIT 207 CTR 19 (Raj.) 8 M/s G.B. Impex vs. ITO • CIT Vs Gotan Lime Khaniz Udhyog 256 ITR 243 (Raj.) 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the finding of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which are contained at para

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases to show bogus sales to cover up cash deposited during the demonetization period” 12. We also see that the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) have also objected to the cash deposit to cash sales ratio. The ld. AO stated that the cash deposit made during October and 08th November, 2016 out of cash sales is higher than

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

purchase of\nshares were admitted by assessee and it had\nnot brought on record anything to suggest that\nreassessment proceedings were being\nundertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned\nreopening notice was justified.\n21 [2019] 101 taxmann.com\n231\n(Madhya Pradesh) HIGH COURT\nOF MADHYA PRADESH\nEtiam EmediaLtd.v. Income-tax\nOfficer-2(2)\nWhere Assessing Officer had specific\ninformation from DIT (Investigation

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus without giving any example or evidence in a very lightly manner when purchases were made through valid Bills and there payments have been made through account payee cheque up to that date. 11.3 As the assessee maintaining Purchase /sales and other documents in this year the Deepawali was on 30.10.2016, Annkut on 31.10.2016 and on 01.11.2016 there was Bhaiya

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

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

bogus.\nThe reasons like non- availability of the said two suppliers at the given\naddresses, non production of two suppliers by the assessee in spite of\nvarious opportunities granted. Assessee has failed to produce the\nowners of the two concerns, Hon'ble High Court also observed that\nmerely voucher of the import export challans or chilans of the custom\nclearance

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase, stock register, ledger, bank accounts, bills, vouchers and other documents. And the ld. AO has not rejected all these or not invoked provision of section 145(3), otherwise she could have invoked the same. Thus cold and hot breath cannot blow together. 15. Addition made without bringing any cogent material on record; Simultaneously Ld. AO could not bring

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI CHANDRA SURANA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Auditor. Any Stock Register Whatsoever Was Not Furnished During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings To Verify The Quantitative Sale Made During The Year Whether The Item Shown By The Assessee As Sold Was Actually In Stock Of The Assessee Or Not & Quantity & Value Of The Sale Shown Remains Unverified. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Ignoring The Vital Fact.

bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee has already included the amount of sale of Rs. 70 lacs in Profit and Loss Account and determined the income on that basis no further addition could

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 with respect to the issue of sale transaction made with M/s Shri Ram Trading Company, and every time entire opening stock, sales , purchase and closing stock made during the year stood accepted. Accordingly the opening and closing stock and trading accounts including sales and purchase had not been disturbed. In these circumstances, it can be said that

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 68 or not in case of NR Portfolio, obtrusive. Similarly bank statements provided by assessee to prove genuineness of transaction cannot be considered in view of judgment of Hon'ble Court in case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. Wherein it was stated that bank statement is not sufficient enough to discharge burden. Regarding failure to accord opportunity

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

bogus gifts in the regular assessment proceedings, the proceedings for penalty were drawn under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The material found in the search may 14 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT be a ground for notice and assessment under Section 153A of the Act but that would not efface or terminate all the consequence, which

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194/-, unclaimed liabilities were brought to tax u/s 41(1) amounting to Rs. 5,000,00/- and an amount of Rs. 73,50,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and unsecured loan received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions