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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

bogus purchases.\n7. 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

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

purchased cheque from broker.\n1.30In the case of CIT vs. Shyam R. Pawar, 54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom)\nITAT, Bombay concluded that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of\nshare transaction, and Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital\ngain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68.\n1.31As

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

bogus was found in the entire search and seizure operation conducted not only at the business premises but also residential premises of the partners of the appellant firm. Further, the observations of the ld. AO in respect of the no. of invoices issued by the appellant on 08/11/2016 post demonetization, the appellant submits that such an observation of then ld.AO

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

bogus was found in the entire search and seizure operation conducted not only at the business premises but also residential premises of the partners of the appellant firm. Further, the observations of the ld. AO in respect of the no. of invoices issued by the appellant on 08/11/2016 post demonetization, the appellant submits that such an observation of then ld.AO

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that the ld. AO while interpreting the seized papers has erred in considering the goods received on approvals/purchases by the appellant as unaccounted sales. From the papers in respect of which such additions have been made, which are approval memos or the memorandum ledger accounts, it is clearly evident that that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that the ld. AO while interpreting the seized papers has erred in considering the goods received on approvals/purchases by the appellant as unaccounted sales. From the papers in respect of which such additions have been made, which are approval memos or the memorandum ledger accounts, it is clearly evident that that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that the ld. AO while interpreting the seized papers has erred in considering the goods received on approvals/purchases by the appellant as unaccounted sales. From the papers in respect of which such additions have been made, which are approval memos or the memorandum ledger accounts, it is clearly evident that that

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

Purchases considered as unaccounted sales: It is submitted that the ld. AO while interpreting the seized papers has erred in considering the goods received on approvals/purchases by the appellant as unaccounted sales. From the papers in respect of which such additions have been made, which are approval memos or the memorandum ledger accounts, it is clearly evident that that