DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income of the appellant. The appellant is a trader and not a manufacturer of the oil in which the appellant is dealing. The books of accounts of the appellant have been rejected in the assessment order. During the survey proceedings the appellant has already offered an additional income of Rs.1

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

Bogus penny stocks capital gains: Section 131 statement implicating the assessee is not\nsufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in\nthe form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments, etc. prove genuine purchase and sale\nof penny stock. Failure to provide cross-examination is a fatal error.\nApart from the above written submission

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases on account of revenue account. As per\nthe record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the\nAssessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to\nevation of tax which has escaped assessment.\n10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the\ncase

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus purchases/enhancement of GP rate and the addition was made in quantum proceedings cannot be made basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Copy of High Court order is enclosed herewith. In other case of Kamlesh Dangayach vs. ACIT Jaipur in ITA no. 18/JPR/2012 it has been held that where addition has been

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

270/-, after\nmaking addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 9,45,817/- by treating the long term\ncapital gain [claimed exempt u/s 10(38)] as accommodation entry and thus bogus,\nand further adding an amount of Rs.18,916/- u/s 69C holding that assessee has\npaid commission for obtaining such accommodation entry. The relevant para of\norder

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

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

270/- on the basis of some images found from the mobile. 2. Addition of Rs. 27,53,711/- u/s 69C was made on account of unaccounted cash purchases on the basis of some images found from the mobile bearing no. 9413342155, which was found from the residence of the assessee. 3. Addition of Rs. 36,291/- was made on account

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NIRANJAN PATIDAR, NEEMUCH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

270/- for A.Y. 2016-17, Rs.10,00,000/- for A.Y. 2017-18,\nRs.86,98,250/- for A.Y. 2018-19, Rs.31,00,850/- for A.Y. 2019-20 may not be\nadded to your total income treating as your undisclosed income.”\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained before ld.AO in the\ncase of Sh. Mahesh Gupta that \"Cash Book

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270 (Mumbai - Trib.)[21-01-\n2025]\nSection 69A, read with sections 68 and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained Moneys (Bogus commodity trading) - Assessment years 2012-13 and\n2014-15 - Assessee filed return for relevant assessment years and assessments\nwere completed under section 143(3) Later, Assessing Officer received\ninformation from Investigating Wing indicating that assessee had indulged

LAXMIKANT TAK,PANCHSHEEL AJMER vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchase bills etc. It was noted that the books of account were not complete. Further on examination of the cash book it was seen that there were discrepancies in the cash book entries. Also it was noted by the A.O that the assessee had not submitted proof of certain expenses incurred on the last day of the financial year

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee has already included the amount of sale of Rs. 70 lacs in Profit and Loss Account and determined the income on that basis no further addition could

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. The A.O. passed the assessment order U/s 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 24/12/2016 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 3,18,99,110/- by making addition U/s 41(1) and 68 of the Act. 5. Being

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

270 268 Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia in R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 Dt. 06/03/2024. Copy of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in 07 - 284 the case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271 13719/2021 dt. 04/01/2023. 19. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

270 268 Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia in R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 Dt. 06/03/2024. Copy of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in 07 - 284 the case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271 13719/2021 dt. 04/01/2023. 19. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

270 268 Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia in R/Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024 Dt. 06/03/2024. Copy of decision of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in 07 - 284 the case of Micro Marbles Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 271 13719/2021 dt. 04/01/2023. 19. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

270/- on 04.10.2022. Copy of acknowledgement of return so filed along with computation of total income is available on Paper Book Page No.1. The books of accounts are duly audited and copy of audit report with audited accounts is available on Paper Book Page No.2-39. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through "CASS" for the reason

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