DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

Section 115BBE no deduction is allowable to the assessee as assessee purchased the material from grey market in cash. A.Y. 2012-13- Revenue ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,23,21,845/- u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases ignoring

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3) are invoked in this case and 25 % as cush purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- from bogus concern which are operated by Shri Rajendra Jain are treated as non genuine and a sum of Rs. 7,99,999/- added back to the total income the assessee, being un explained expenditure

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned order thus, to\nthis extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves\nto be quashed.\n4. Rs.63,97,664/-1 The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an altogether new issue of the alleged\ndisallowance u/s 43B(e) of the Act on account of interest

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team and it is alleged that there

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team and it is alleged that there

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team and it is alleged that there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

36(1)(va), thus the re-opening of the assessment by\nalleging the receipts from M/s DRAIPL as bogus, for which the information had\nalready been supplied and available on record in the assessment proceedings u/s\n143(3) is nothing but reconsideration of the accepted fact and tantamount to\nchange of opinion on the same facts.\n\nIn other words

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act. The learned AO has also not allowed the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act and not granted the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Copy of order is placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

36,16,893/- shown by the assessee. The copy of special audit report is separately filed by the assessee as Paper Book Vol-4. The AO rejected the books of accounts of assessee and estimated the profits by applying the provisions of section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and assessment order vide his order dated

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

bogus. The search party in Q. No.16 (PB 9-11) has drawn inference as to inflated/ bogus wages only for the reason that in case of 3 persons there is difference in signature in the salary sheet for the month of February, 2016 and August, 2016. This cannot be considered to be an incriminating material to assume inflation of wages

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

bogus. The search party in Q. No.16 (PB 9-11) has drawn inference as to inflated/ bogus wages only for the reason that in case of 3 persons there is difference in signature in the salary sheet for the month of February, 2016 and August, 2016. This cannot be considered to be an incriminating material to assume inflation of wages

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to 26 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to 26 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 30.03.2016. 2 Amar Pratap Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has taken following grounds. “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Center ("NFAC") has erred in confirming the action

SHASHI KANT KHETAN,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus under the light of above mentioned judicial pronouncements. The comparative contract expenses of the assessee of some years are as under: - ITA 986/JP/2017_ 6 Shashi Kant Khetan Vs ACIT Asstt Total Exp Percentage of Year Turnover contract expenses to contract receipts

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)

36 taxmann.com 540 (Pune-Trib.). (xiii) G. Raja Gopala Rao v. DCIT, Circle-4 (1), Visakhapatnam, [2017] 78 taxmann. Com 61 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) (xiv) CIT Vs Samir Synthetics Mill (2010) 326 ITR 410 (Guj HC). (xv) M/S Bhalchandra Trading P. Ltd. Versus Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6 (2) Mumbai 2021 (2) TMI 1095 - ITAT Mumbai. The Ld. AR further submitted