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.

purchases are bogus. The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. It is for the assessee to establish by evidence that a particular allowance is justified. The law does not prescribe any quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. It all depends on the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

391 (Raj.) it was held that the genuineness of transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on records. The department is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogug. (d) In Beena Metals V/s CIT, 240 ITR 222((Ker) the Hon'ble High Court has held that failure to furnish particulars

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus purchases was justified 5. 178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 6. 186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd 8. 250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica

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 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

purchases from these two concerns. iii. AO was well within his jurisprudence to reopen the case of the assessee u/s 148. iv. Appellant never raised these issues before the AO and raising an academic issue like this at appellant stage tantamounts to distracting the department from the real issue. 4. Now we will submit our submission on above observations

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchasing land, on which project had to be developed. 2.8 Hon’ble ITAT accepted the legal position that interest expenditure was otherwise allowable under section 36(1)(iii) having been incurred for the purpose of business, however it was of the view that the treatment has also to be in consonance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee

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)

391 (Chennai-Trib.). (xii) NishikantT.Patnev.ACIT,Circle-3, [2013] 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law. ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 29 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT The Hon'ble High Court has laid down the principle that the Assessing Officer being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law. ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 29 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT The Hon'ble High Court has laid down the principle that the Assessing Officer being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

purchase without realizing that details mentioned on one page is exactly tallying with the details available on second page for example on page 15 and 17 of C- 14 (except slight difference of about 3 gms. in the last item named as IR' in its gross weight and also in net weight). Similarly all items of page 17 match with

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

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

purchase without realizing that details mentioned on one page is exactly tallying with the details available on second page for example on page 15 and 17 of C- 14 (except slight difference of about 3 gms. in the last item named as IR' in its gross weight and also in net weight). Similarly all items of page 17 match with

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus claim in the return filed. However, the question\nto be considered was whether the assessee could be the beneficiary of its own\nfraud or mistake and whether the Assessing Officer was prevented from correcting\nthe same under section 147. It was to be noted that the Explanation to section\n147(2) specifically provides that the excessive relief granted under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

391: [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision \nwas rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex \nCourt in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) \n209: [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment \nproceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a \ndeduction that

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

391: [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision\nwas rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex\nCourt in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC)\n209: [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment\nproceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a\ndeduction that

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchase and sale of real estate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take 25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than making addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is sustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P .LTD.,AJMER vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER

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

391/- 41,35,015/- 1,69,64,723/- Incentives (Rs.) Revised G.P. (Rs.) 28,33,660/- 59,32,043/- 1,93,00,424/- Revised G.P. rate 0.70% 1.01% 1.68% 9 ITA NO. 397/JP/2015 RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER 3.2 Thus, the trading results this year are the best as compared to the last two years