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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

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