SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

292C\nPresumption as to assets, books of account, etc.\n292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the\npossession or control of any person in the course of a search under\nsection 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding\nunder this

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

292C\nPresumption as to assets, books of account, etc.\n292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the\npossession or control of any person in the course of a search under\nsection 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding\nunder this

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability\nof (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed\nCommissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party\ninformation gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been\nindependently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not\nprovided copy

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections 132(4A) and 292C of the IT Act though a rebuttable presumption, is to be presumed against the petitioner The legal principles enumerated in the above referred judgements in the case of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxrnann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] and in the case

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.15 The Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SHRI GANPATI DEVELOPERS, KOTA

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

purchase, payments etc. to verify the version advanced by the assessee. (3) The A.O. has not been able to adduce or bring on record any corroborative evidence to show that higher consideration was actually received by the appellant outside the books of accounts to match with the figures of difference appearing in the loose sheet. In fact

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

bogus only to give colour to non- genuine transaction as genuine transaction when all the transactions have been substantiated with purchase and sale register as well as stock register. 6. Because the L.d. CIT(A) has not accepted the contention of the appellant that it had changed its sales strategy in the later part of the FY 2015-16 whereby

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

bogus unsecured loan from M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt Ltd. No reference to any seized or impounded material.(Ref. Asst Order Para 11 Pg 49) v Disallowance of Rs 2001/ u/s 14A- No reference to any seized or impounded material. Addition made by the AO at (i), (iv) and (v) are not related to any seized or impounded documents. In making

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus purchases has led\nto mushrooming of facilitators, commonly referred to as 'accommodation entry\nproviders who rotate funds for such purchase/sales in an attempt to authenticate\nsuch transactions. Many a times the entities doing genuine business also\nprovides accommodation bills and is it not necessary that the accommodation\nentry provider has to be exclusively into such practice. There are number

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

292C is also\napplicable\n\nIn the Internet banking facility of this impugned bank account the mobile number\nof Sh Rachit Aggrwal (son of appellant) had been registered. Further e-mail id\n\"info.omgroup@gmail.com\", is the registered e-mail id of the bank account\nnumber 5111215909 opened in the name of Shri Ram Singh Meena in Kotak\nMahindra Bank, Sardar

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nfu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal \n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside \nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur \ncuke \nVs. \nACIT, \nCentral Circle-2, \nJaipur \nLFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvk Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M \nvihykFkhZ@Appellant \ni zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 \nfu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year

bogus cash credits and other towards\n\n37\nITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 \nSunil Kumar Agarwal \nprofits suppressed. It was found by the Tribunal that there is a connection \nbetween the profits withheld by the assessee in the account books and the cash \ncredit entries found therein and, therefore, it can be concluded that only one \naddition could be made

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

purchases from the assessee. He also expressed his inability in furnishing the addresses of the persons appearing in the loose papers on the ground that these papers were written by his father, who has suffered brain hemorrhage and was unable to speak. The facts being so, it is not clear that how the ld. AO has concluded that the papers

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

Section 153 A proceedings, analyzed specific\nseized documents found during the search on the assessee. Key findings by the\nAO were:\ni. Unaccounted Sales from Seized Papers:\nThe AO identified four instances on cross check basis of unrecorded sales from\nthe seized material:\na. an offer to sell 185 kg of rough stones for ₹20,35,000 (noted on Exhibit

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

purchase. This is not a standard or common practice of the jewellery industry. Also it is seen that the number of items such numericals are not mentioned. The details in the software have never been submitted before the Department in earlier years. Such details as available in the software are not available for the earlier years. There is no linkage

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

bogus expenses in the hands of applicant in various years and same has been declared on the basis of incriminating documents. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,71,72,858/- and Rs.27,91,592/- has been added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 respectively. Therefore the balance amount of Rs.35,500/-[Rs.2

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

bogus unsecured loan from M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt Ltd and of Rs 2,680/ on estimated commission payment for arranging unsecured loan. Thus, there is no mention of any seized or impounded document in the entire order. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. As has been demonstrated above, out of 4 assessments, there is absolutely no reference to any seized

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

bogus unsecured loan from M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt Ltd and of Rs 2,680/ on estimated commission payment for arranging unsecured loan. Thus, there is no mention of any seized or impounded document in the entire order. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. As has been demonstrated above, out of 4 assessments, there is absolutely no reference to any seized

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

bogus unsecured loan from M/s Inner Mercantile Pvt Ltd and of Rs 2,680/ on estimated commission payment for arranging unsecured loan. Thus, there is no mention of any seized or impounded document in the entire order. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. As has been demonstrated above, out of 4 assessments, there is absolutely no reference to any seized