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

section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961, return

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

section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961, return

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

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

section 145(3). Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) acted beyond jurisdiction and perversely allowed relief of Rs. 2,23,42,465/- (2,43,03,809 - 19,61,344); 1.1 Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,23,42,465/- made on account of suppressed sale and unexplained investment in purchase including expenses, without appreciating that the assessee failed

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)

340, thereby resulting into addition of Rs. 80,00,000. Ld. AO while passing the order made additions under Section 68 and invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE. II. Against the order passed by ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center (“NFAC”/ “ld. CIT(A)”). NFAC, vide order dated 13.04.2022, in Appeal

SHRI YOGENDRA KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 4

bogus, inflated or was diverted for the personal use of the assessee.” 36. Without prejudice to above, it was submitted that the nature of commission payment is different from that of expenditure incurred on travelling, staff welfare or office expenses. Such expenses comprise of number of expenses, part of which may or may not be supported by proper evidences

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

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. R.P.K. GEMS AND JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

purchases are not supported by the quantitative details and the AO did not make any enquiry on the matenal supplied by the assessee. Thus the AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus it is also an open fact that the demonetization

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

bogus purchases.\n7. 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

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date taken by the banker

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date taken by the banker

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date taken by the banker

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date taken by the banker

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date taken by the banker

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

340/. The assessee\nrequested for supply of reasons for reopening which were duly\nprovided to it on 11.10.2018. The assessee did not raise any\nobjections to the reasons of reopening. The assessee was issued\na show cause notice in response to which submissions were made\nby the assessee. The details furnished by the entity were\nconsidered. Based on the information

MUKESH SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

340/- whereas during demonetization period cash sales was Rs. 55,580/- only. In view of these observations assessee was required to explain as to why the cash deposit of Rs. 33,71,000/- should be treated as unexplained income for the year under consideration. 6 Mukesh Soni vs. ITO 3.3 In compliance the assessee has furnished a detailed reply stating

SMT. MANJU AGRAWAL,BHARTPUR vs. ITO, BHARTPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

340 ITR 161(Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 247 CTR 468 (Punjab & Haryana) "Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained investments Assessment year 1998-99 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer found that assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between Rs 2.50 and Rs. 3.40 per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares