ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

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

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

24 months. • It is also worthwhile to mention that this is not a case where purchases have been made from one party and Bill from other party is obtained. • Vide AO's Letter Dated No. 1208 dated 17/11/2009, it was clearly asked to produce the purchase Bilis and confirmations from them, failing which, it was also asked to state reasons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

bogus purchases ignoring the fact that assessee was involved in taking the accommodation entry from Rajendra Jain and Banwari Lal Jain Group. ‘’3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the deduction u/s 10AA/10A of the Act ignoring the fact that provisions of Section

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

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

x \nIn the present case also in course of search proceedings, statement of \nassessee was recorded under section 132(4) admitting certain undisclosed \nincome. Subsequently, assessee retracted said statement. In course of \nassessment, Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on basis of \nstatement given by the assessee. It is a fact that statement had been recorded in \npresence

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

24-29), wherein, at serial no. 3 of which ld.AO has proposed to make addition of Rs.3,95,46,694/- on the basis of page 22 of Exhibit 81 and has further questioned about the purchases from M/s Nikhil Associates and Shivalik Grit udhyog. In response to such notice, assessee furnished detailed reply on 09.06.2021 (APB 30-37) duly explaining

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

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 2(24)(x). Therefore claiming this amount as expenditure by the assessee is an incorrect claim as per law. 8. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated here in above in para 2. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee a propose

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should

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 selling the goods from /to\nKolkata therefore we have a large number of contacts there and it was easier\nfor us to arrange loans there from. Therefore, in the Answer to Q.No. 33 of\n\n33\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani Solvex Private Ltd.\n\nstatements of Shri Sanjay Karnani, there is no such fact as observed

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

24 ITA 1383/JP/2019 & 09/JP/2020_ Sh. Sunder Das Sonkia Vs ITO addition of 25% being inflated purchases was made and upheld by the Tribunal which was again upheld by the Hon'ble High Court. On the contrary in the case of the assessee the AO not given any finding of inflated purchases by the assessee but doubted the very transactions

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

x;k Fkk tks esjh tkudkjh esa gSA fQj Hkh eSa iw.kZ :i ls larq"V gksdj bl i`"B ds ckjs esa tokc ns jgk gwaA In reply to the question No. 34, the assessee has clearly stated that the transaction of loan from all the parties were taken on interest in the F.Y. 2009-10 and these were

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

x;k Fkk tks esjh tkudkjh esa gSA fQj Hkh eSa iw.kZ :i ls larq"V gksdj bl i`"B ds ckjs esa tokc ns jgk gwaA In reply to the question No. 34, the assessee has clearly stated that the transaction of loan from all the parties were taken on interest in the F.Y. 2009-10 and these were

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

x;k Fkk tks esjh tkudkjh esa gSA fQj Hkh eSa iw.kZ :i ls larq"V gksdj bl i`"B ds ckjs esa tokc ns jgk gwaA In reply to the question No. 34, the assessee has clearly stated that the transaction of loan from all the parties were taken on interest in the F.Y. 2009-10 and these were

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

x;k Fkk tks esjh tkudkjh esa gSA fQj Hkh eSa iw.kZ :i ls larq"V gksdj bl i`"B ds ckjs esa tokc ns jgk gwaA In reply to the question No. 34, the assessee has clearly stated that the transaction of loan from all the parties were taken on interest in the F.Y. 2009-10 and these were

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

x;k Fkk tks esjh tkudkjh esa gSA fQj Hkh eSa iw.kZ :i ls larq"V gksdj bl i`"B ds ckjs esa tokc ns jgk gwaA In reply to the question No. 34, the assessee has clearly stated that the transaction of loan from all the parties were taken on interest in the F.Y. 2009-10 and these were