SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

264 ITR-254 (Gau). 5.1.16. It is also relevant that the appellant had failed to provide even the basic information like the permanent Account Number which could have helped the Assessing Officer to verify the persons whose correct addresses were not provided by the appellant. The addresses provided by the appellant were found incorrect. 5.1.17. Further, the case laws relied

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)

264-328) “16. Ground no. 2 relates to action of the lower authority treating the part of the sales attributable to cash sales as unexplained money (under section 69A) or that of the unexplained cash credits (under section 68 ) of the Act. As we hold a view that the revenue cannot be accept the part of the sales as explained

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

264 (Jaipur - Trib.) accepted the above proposition and held that Explanation to section 92B enhancing its scope to be applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. 4.37. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 4.38. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect

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

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 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

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

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 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

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

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 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG found to be credited in the books of made. account maintained by the Assessee. • Assessee has already submitted the • The Ld. CIT(A) relying heavily on sufficient documentary evidence which judicial precedents such as PCIT vs has not been disapproved and proved Arnav Goyal, deleted the addition false by the Ld. AO, no defect has without adequately examining

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

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

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Loss to the beneficiaries; by receiving cash and the purchase and sale of share was done to route the unaccounted income into legal money. The financials of the company for the relevant period do not show any substantial change to support by financial fundamentals of the company. Both purchase and sale of the shares are concentrated

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 148 for AY 2015-16 is invalid, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings null and void. 4.7 Hon’ble ITAT, Raipur Bench in the case of DCIT v. Vinay Agrawal[2025] 2 TMI 891 order dated 17.02.2025after considering theaforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra) has held: Reopening of assessment - Period of limitation - Bogus purchases

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

264 (Jaipur - Trib.) accepted the above proposition and held that Explanation to section 92B enhancing its scope to be applicable from A.Y. 2013-14 onwards. 10. It is submitted that when the assessee made cash sales, the amended provisions of section 115BBE were not in existence. 11. Where an amendment, as under 92B, although was introduced having a retrospective effect

SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 68 of the Act.\n8.12 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel\nPvt. Ltd. reported in 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) held as under:-\n\"The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of\nShare Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would\nbe particularly so in the case

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of diverse materials and services. Government contracts have specific compliance requirements affecting profit margins. 5. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 91,05,708/- which is Excessive compared to the declared income of Rs. 70,33,180/- and not supported by any material evidence of income suppression. It is based on presumptions rather than

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchase of diverse materials and services. Government\ncontracts have specific compliance requirements affecting profit margins.\n5. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.91,05,708/- which is\nExcessive compared to the declared income of Rs.70,33,180/- and not supported\nby any material evidence of income suppression. It is based on presumptions\nrather than facts

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase and sale prices of their shares. That the material/information provided by you has nothing adverse evidence to the axiomatic conclusion drawn by you that I had entered into an agreement with the broker or any other person to convert unaccounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG which is exempt u/s 10(38) in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act, onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the credit entry contained in his books of accounts. The burden has to be discharged with positive material (Oceanic Products Exporting Co. v. CIT [2000] 241 TTR 497 (Ker.). The legislature had laid down