M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to 26 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to assessee under section 263 proposing to revise assessment order passed

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

purchases all other issues\ndealt with by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order dated March\n30, 2009, were not a subject matter of the assessment order passed on\nJune 28, 2006, under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues\non which the Commissioner of Income-tax is seeking to exercise the\njurisdiction under 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

Section 263 of the Act under the facts of the present case. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. The ld. AR has further submitted that the AO, in his assessment order, has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and has held the sales to be bogus. The ld. PCIT, in the order

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

Section 263 of the Act under the facts of the present case. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. The ld. AR has further submitted that the AO, in his assessment order, has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and has held the sales to be bogus. The ld. PCIT, in the order

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

Section 263 of the Act under the facts of the present case. Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee stands dismissed. 16. The ld. AR has further submitted that the AO, in his assessment order, has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and has held the sales to be bogus. The ld. PCIT, in the order

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

section 147/143(3) dated 17.12.2018, and the merged order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur in an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

sections 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2022. 2 Vipul Kumar Modi vs. PCIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1 Ground1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing an order u/s. 263 of the Act and in holding that

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , 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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

section 263 and to pass any order on this aspect of the matter. 6 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT 412 ITR 515 (Guj) Haryana Paper Distributors Pvt. Ltd. V. Pr. CIT Held Two things immediately become clear. First that the Assessing Officer did not hold that assessee purchases from 'T' were bogus

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

bogus LTCG by making transactions in penny stock namely, Gujarat Meditech Ltd. Also, the assessee had purchased 190000 shares other penny stock company namely: M/s Safal herbs Ltd., amounting to Rs. 59,66,309/- during the F.Y. 2012-13. The above transactions and investment in penny stock company were not verifiable from the return of income of the assessee

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

purchase and sale of shares, it can be good reason to treat transactions as bogus difference of case of Udit Kalra attempted by Ld. AR does not add any credence to justify transactions. Investigation Wing has also conducted enquires which proved that assessee is also one of beneficiaries of transactions and entries provided, Even BSE listed this company as being

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

purchase and sale of shares, it can be good reason to treat transactions as bogus difference of case of Udit Kalra attempted by Ld. AR does not add any credence to justify transactions. Investigation Wing has also conducted enquires which proved that assessee is also one of beneficiaries of transactions and entries provided, Even BSE listed this company as being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus and treated as accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made of 25% of the above purchase amounting to Rs. 43,33,606/- (25% of Rs. 1,73,34,424) is absolutely justifiable.” 9. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee relied on the detailed finding recorded in the order

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus or not genuine but merely stated that the transaction could have been verified by the contract notes from the brokers, challan etc. Revision order of the PR. CIT Set Aside. Also refer Subrata Kumar Nag v/s PR. CIT 127 TTJ 238(Kol), Rajiv Arora v/s PR. CIT (Supra). We would like to refer the case of Kartik Financial Services

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

bogus concerns of Bhanwar Lal Jain & Group." Thus it is clear that the reopening of the assessment is based on the information received and to assess the income in respect of the purchases made by the assessee which was examined by the AO during M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The AO after

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

bogus concerns of Bhanwar Lal Jain & Group." Thus it is clear that the reopening of the assessment is based on the information received and to assess the income in respect of the purchases made by the assessee which was examined by the AO during M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The AO after

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

263 (Guj) is tenable wherein it has been held that whole exercise of disallowance by the AO is Revenue neutral and since purchase made are through cheque payment the section 69C is not attracted. The relevant para of he judgement are 10 to 12 and the same are reproduced (mentioned at page 24 of the ld. CIT(A) ‘s order

M/S. OM PRAKASH BADAYA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT,, ALWAR

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by alleging that the Ld. AO has not made proper enquiries and verification into the matter and issued Show Cause Notice u/s 263 to the assessee requiring him to show cause with regard to the proposed action u/s 263 (APB 10-11). In response to show cause notice replies were submitted alongwith