CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal

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)

2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers it was not incumbent on it to restrict the disallowance to only Rs. 73,23,322/-" (Emphasis Supplied) The honourable jurisdictional High Court has in number of cases leg Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur vs. M/s Gems Paradise, Jaipur in D.B. Income Tax Appeal NO. 201/2010 decided

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

40A] to an employee engaged in such scientific research or on the purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall, to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority to have been laid out or expended

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA & Sh. R. K. Bhatra, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 31/07/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 01/08/2024 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Aman Exports International DCIT, Vs. G-93 Epip Sitapura, Industrial Area Circle

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section.\nAppellant prays reopening the assessment under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and is not in accordance with law, thus\nconsequent order deserves to be quashed.\n2. On facts and circumstances of the matter the Id. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,342/-made by Id.AO on the basis of\nan excel

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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 assessee under section 263 proposing to revise assessment order passed

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

bogus concern which was operated by Shri Rajendra Jain without any physical deliveries and such purchases amounting to Rs 7,54,587/- were treated as non genuine and 25% of such purchases were brought to tax as unexplained expenditure besides addition of Rs. 15,092/-, being 2% of Rs. 7,54,587/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, 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 ACIT, Vs. 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 Kesh

b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132. (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article of thing are or is found in the possession

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

b) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132. (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article of thing are or is found in the possession

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

B-Bench” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,o a Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM, & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 123/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1989-90 to 1999-2000 (Block period) cuke Lunawat Gems Corporation Dy. CIT, 2135-36, Lunawat Market

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)

40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) - Tribunal, however, set aside said

SHRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL, 501 UNIQUE SANGHI APARTMENT DURGAPURA JAIPUR-302018,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 40A(2)(b) was not invoked. 2. Commission Expenses was incurred out of Commercial Expediency: 2.1 It is submitted that it was a decision taken by a business man out of commercial expediency and looking from this angle, it was an expenditure incurred by the assessee solely and exclusively for the purposes of the business and is fully allowable

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

b) or\nclause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had\nbeen found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a\nsearch under section 132.\n(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article of thing are or is found

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

b) or\nclause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had\nbeen found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a\nsearch under section 132.\n(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion,\njewellery or other valuable article of thing are or is found

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus except allegation, otherwise he could have rejected the books of accounts or made the addition on that account. The ld. AO nowhere stated that what inquiry has been made or what evidences in his hands for the allegations made. The ld. AO invoked, provisions of section 68 of the I T Act, 1961 In this regard it is submitted

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

40A(3) of the Act applies to buyer and not the seller. There being no restriction under the Act to accept cash against sales, the assessee Company cannot be penalized. (g) Hon'ble supreme court in the case of CIT v. P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC) has clearly explain that the primary condition for invocation of section

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

B’ JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Dalas Biotech Ltd. The ACIT Vs. E-292, RIICO Industrial Area Alwar Bhiwadi LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

bogus\nexpenditure was claimed to the tune of Rs.5,79,822/- (3,75,917/- + 2,03,905/-)\ntowards construction of boundary walls on two plots of land.\n6.2 In written submission, assessee has mainly challenged the penalty\nproceedings on the technical ground that in the assessment order, AO had not\nspecified whether the penalty proceedings were being initiated for furnishing