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

253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon

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

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during investigation, impugned additions made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted[2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC)/[2022] 289 Taxman 625 (SC)[0.... 9 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT INCOME TAX SLP dismissed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

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

bogus purchase/ unexplained investment. It is beyond understanding as to why the AO has given so much credence to the VAT return even though it was neither filled by a qualified expert, nor it was examined or verified by any Chartered Accountant, meaning thereby VAT return was not at all worth reliance as against the regularly maintained books of accounts

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 CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arranged bogus LTCG/STCL & unsecured loans etc to various beneficiaries/parties in lieu of commission in cash. Statement of Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has already been recorded before the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata on several occasions before. In his statement Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has admitted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

253(4) of the Act endorses the situation of finality with regard to the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, the Appellate Tribunal under resort to rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, would be justified to consider the contention raised by the assessee in regard to which the first appellate

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus LTCG of Rs.15,95,000/-which has not\nbeen found genuine and verifiable from Income Tax Return on prima facie verification. The last\nsentence records that as per this information, \"reasons to believe' are formed, approval taken\nunder section 151 and notice issued under section 148 of the Act.\n\nii) The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GOTAM AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

253/- by making addition under section 68 of the Act of Rs. 2,58,56,715/- and Interest Income of Rs. 25,00,578/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) considering the submissions and the details furnished by the assessee and also taking into consideration various judicial

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

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

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

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

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus purchase, without discharging his onus of providing copy of the statements of persons and material relied upon by him The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,44,910’’. 2.1 At the outset of hearing