M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases as unverifiable and sustain such adhoc additions. The assessee derives support from the following judicial pronouncements to substantiate its submissions: CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC) Held, “In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271 (I)(c) (ii) In view of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, the additional evidences could be admitted only if the case of the assessee falls in any of the four clauses as mentioned in Sub-Rule-1 of Rule 46A. It was claimed by the AR that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. Ground No 2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. Ground No 2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

251 of the Act, the CIT(A) can enhance the income. Similarly section 33A of 1922 Act corresponds to section 263 and 264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

251 of the Act, the CIT(A) can enhance the income. Similarly section 33A of 1922 Act corresponds to section 263 and 264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

251 of the Act, the CIT(A) can enhance the income. Similarly section 33A of 1922 Act corresponds to section 263 and 264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

bogus purchase but the purchases are held unverifiable as much as 85% of very same purchases has been allowed. It is the case where purchases are not doubted but bills of purchases were held unverifiable because of non-verification thereof from sellers. The addition has been made as trading addition by invoking section 145 (3). Further as stated above

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

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Gujarat has decided issue in favour of the revenue. The Ld CIT (A)\nhad also put the para 6 of the aforesaid order, where-in, the entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices debited in the trading account is\ndisallowed by the court.\nIt is ample clear that the aforesaid

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded

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)

bogus which shall be reduced from sales shown by the appellant for the year. Closing Stock 5,25,60,282.42 5,25,60,282.42 CIT(A) made no findings for closing stock which means he has accepted stock . Total Credit side 26,95,43,458.98 20,18,84,458.98 Trading Account Debit side Opening stock

NRI-BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. PCIT JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 724/Jpr/2024 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nri-Buildtech (India) Private Limited Cuke The Pcit Vs. Main Road Chopanki, Near Power Jaipur-1, Jaipur. House, Vill- Bilahedi, Bhilwadi, Alwar. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaecn3080A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2024

251/- on account of delayed contribution to ESIC and PF. The addition was made on account of unproved purchases as assessee had failed to submit the breakup of its entire purchases during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.3 During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee could substantiate/prove only purchase of Rs. 11,34,69,522/- as against the claim

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

purchases are sought to be treated as bogus or disproved and consequently proceeds to make addition us/ 69C of the Act without correspondingly adjusting the sales figure specially when the liabilities (creditors) recorded in the balance 12 ITA No. 764/JP/2018 & CO No. 24/JP/2018 ITO vs. Shri Man Mohan Mittal sheet are also disbelieved and added back as income, then