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

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

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

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)

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sales or purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 68 is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit as held in the case of Panchan Dass Jain cited supra. The addition for bogus

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases are not supported by the quantitative details and the AO did not make any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. Thus the AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization of Rs.500

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68/ 69C: In case of bogus purchases where sales are accepted, the addition can be made only to the extent of difference between the GP declared by the assessee on normal purchases vis a vis bogus purchases. The AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of lower GP declared by the assessee in respect of bogus purchases

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit (Sundry Creditors) Block Periods 1-4-1990 to 20-6-2000 - Where assessee had shown bogus creditors, profit of assessee should be estimated at a higher rate or a separate addition for creditors should be made [In favour of revenue] The assessee was engaged in construction business. During course