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)

bogus purchases, and non- existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstances of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to interfere

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 but it should have been made u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961 then the jurisdiction of CIT (A) in limited to deciding the matter whether the addition u/s 69A is correct or not. In the appellate proceeding the addition cannot be confirmed by applying all together different section by invoking a section for which satisfaction is required

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act as the same cannot be\nmade without rejecting the books of account of the assessee\nregularly maintained by the assessee and the said cash deposited is\nduly supported by the entries passed in the books of account and\npart of the sale accepted by the AO.\n2.23.ii. ACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus sale to introduce the unaccounted cash. Hence, the show cause was issued on 24.12.2019 to the assessee asking as to why the amount of specified bank notes deposited by in bank subsequent to announcement of demonetization should not be added to income under the provisions of section 68 of Act as the explanation furnished by you in respect

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

68,416/- may not be added in the total income of the assessee considering the bogus purchase of the assessee vide order sheet dated 05.12.2016. In response, the assessee filed ledger account of the following parties as appearing in his books of accounts. 1. Copy of ledger a/c of M/s Simran Gems, Surat Prop. Shri Gyan Chand Jain 2. Copy

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

68,416/- may not be added in the total income of the assessee considering the bogus purchase of the assessee vide order sheet dated 05.12.2016. In response, the assessee filed ledger account of the following parties as appearing in his books of accounts. 1. Copy of ledger a/c of M/s Simran Gems, Surat Prop. Shri Gyan Chand Jain 2. Copy

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus and just an afterthought. Thus, the revenue and assessee has challenged that order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus these cross appeals are filed before us by the revenue and the assessee. 13. First, we take up the appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 1231/JPR/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 where the solitary ground taken

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sale and purchases to substantiate her deposits. Based on the above reasons and considering the provision of section 68

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

68 ITR 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

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. The cash deposits being SBNs in bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 6,76,59,000 are unexplained and alternatively taxable under section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced from

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases as well in the guise of loan to\nvarious other companies. It has also been gathered that during F.Y. 2009-\n10 LMJ Group of Companies had transferred fund to the tune of Rs.\n108,67,95,000/- to the account of Satyatej Vyappar Pvt Ltd., a paper\ncompany, in the form of Bogus Expenses through bogus billing. Such\nbogus

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL it was found that DRAIPL has been generating unaccounted money by booking bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL it was found that DRAIPL has been generating unaccounted money by booking bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 68 of the Act as the same cannot be made without rejecting the books of account of the assessee regularly maintained by the assessee and the said cash deposited is duly supported by the entries passed in the books of account and part of the sale accepted by the AO. • ACIT Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal