SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

39,399/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

bogus but the entry in the seized material is only the computation of long term capital gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

39,115/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 19.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

39,437, being 25% of alleged unverified purchases [Compilation Page 1-8]. Ld. AO could not prove to the hilt; the fact of income being concealed by the assessee firmby way of such alleged unverifiable purchases. 1.5. All the requisite evidences, as referred to in Para 1.2 above, for substantiating the purchases made were submitted by the assessee firm

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

1 (AP)(HC)/ Shanker Rice Co. v. ITO (2000) 72 ITD 139 (Asr.)(SB)(Trib.)(158) In above cases, the courts have taken the view that, records maintained by Central Excise Authorities/ Various State Govt authorities are important piece of evidence. Applying the same principle if sales tax authorities have taken the view that the purchases are bogus

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per facts of the case, dates of the notices issued and the decision in the case of Kachrulal Jitendra Kuma [2025 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT RAIPUR] we find that the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Evidently, under the facts and circumstances of the present case

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

bogus or sham so as to consider the same as unexplained. 8.5 I find that the appellant has demonstrated that the required ingredients to explain the cash credit as genuine. There is no doubt about the identity of Makesworth which is discernible from agreement itself entered into, its tax returns and assessment orders etc. The genuineness of transaction is also

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

39,881/-) are not disclosed in the audited balance sheet as\nwell as in the ITR, the bank transactions remains unexplained. As\nper Bank account obtained u/s 133(6) from the Axis Bank, it is\nnoticed that the bank account was opened on 30.08.2016. The\ntotal of credit entries is worked out at Rs.13,33,68,090/- for the\nyear

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After search (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee company on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011, declaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. As ground no., 1 and 3 are against the same action of the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT (A) and are containing identical facts and submissions and hence both the grounds viz. 1 and 3 are being argued simultaneously. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

39,881/-) are not disclosed in the audited balance sheet as well as in the ITR, the bank transactions remains unexplained. As per Bank account obtained u/s 133(6) from the Axis Bank, it is noticed that the bank account was opened on 30.08.2016. The total of credit entries is worked

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

39 except that the assessee was not able to tell the name of the person who helped the assessee in procuring the loan. Since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the answers of the assessee as they could not extract the statement which can be used against the assessee, therefore, question were continuously put to the assessee

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

39 except that the assessee was not able to tell the name of the person who helped the assessee in procuring the loan. Since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the answers of the assessee as they could not extract the statement which can be used against the assessee, therefore, question were continuously put to the assessee

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

39 except that the assessee was not able to tell the name of the person who helped the assessee in procuring the loan. Since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the answers of the assessee as they could not extract the statement which can be used against the assessee, therefore, question were continuously put to the assessee

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

39 except that the assessee was not able to tell the name of the person who helped the assessee in procuring the loan. Since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the answers of the assessee as they could not extract the statement which can be used against the assessee, therefore, question were continuously put to the assessee

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

39 except that the assessee was not able to tell the name of the person who helped the assessee in procuring the loan. Since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the answers of the assessee as they could not extract the statement which can be used against the assessee, therefore, question were continuously put to the assessee