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

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

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

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

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

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

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

251(1) of the Act in case of assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act. 9. As is available from the assessment order dated 25.05.2023 as per specific information available on Insight portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU information, uploaded by the office of DDIT (Inv.), Unit-6(2), New Delhi, a survey u/s 133A

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchase receipts 3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5) 4. Copy of Demat Account 5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts 6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has declared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1) He also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchase receipts 3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5) 4. Copy of Demat Account 5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts 6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has declared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1) He also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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)\nHe also based

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

section by invoking a section for which satisfaction is required to be by “Assessing Officer” and the assessing officer after considering the detailed reply and documents was satisfied about the ingredients of section 68. Reliance placed on the following decisions:- a) ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of M/s MotisonsGobal Private Limited vs ACIT ITA No 388/ JP/2017 order dated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, 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

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) - Tribunal, however, set aside said penalty order - Whether since at time of initiating penalty proceedings Assessing Officer did not have any material on record showing that payments made to suppliers were bogus, he could not have merely on basis of assessee's offer to be taxed on estimate basis, concluded that assessee had provided inaccurate particulars

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

purchase 53,475 sqr ft land at B-1 \nParvatipuram, Kota at the rate of Rs.400 per square for a total \nconsideration of Rs.2,13,90,000/-. And Rs.51,11,111/-was paid as first \ninstalment. These figures exactly match with the loose paper noting. And \nassessee has not denied the fact that the paper is not related

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchases and deposit in bank account\nvide judgment delivered on 19.01.2022. It has held that where the ITAT decided\nthe matter based on appreciation of evidences placed on record and the order of\nITAT not being challenged on ground of perversity, no substantial question of law\narises. It also held that the investigation wing directed the A O to frame