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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

purchase and sale of shares\nare genuine. Even otherwise the holding of the shares by the assessee at the time of\nallotment subsequent to the amalgamation/ merger is not in doubt, therefore, the\ntransaction cannot be held as bogus. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by\nthe AO on this account. \"On further appeal by the department

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

bogus purchases.\n7. 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

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus purchases has led\nto mushrooming of facilitators, commonly referred to as 'accommodation entry\nproviders who rotate funds for such purchase/sales in an attempt to authenticate\nsuch transactions. Many a times the entities doing genuine business also\nprovides accommodation bills and is it not necessary that the accommodation\nentry provider has to be exclusively into such practice. There are number

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

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

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

bogus purchase bills from ‘GJ’, since AO had\nnot recorded his own satisfaction and had not made any effort to examine\nand to discuss material received from Investigation wing, reassessment\nso made was to be quashed.\nPioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 DTR 237 (Del.)\n(Trib.)\nAO having formed the belief that assessee's income

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)

purchasers has been mentioned in the bills issued and the bills are below Rs. 2,00,000/- just to avoid the obligation of maintaining the details of the customer as well as to evade the provisions of TDS and to introduce the unaccounted money through bogus

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)

bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases. DRAIPL was awarded by National Highway Authority of India and that work was sub-contracted to the assessee firm. During the year under consideration, assessee firm received Rs. 6,26,88,011/- from DRAIPL as payments for the above contract work. These payments were received through bank after deduction of TDS

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)

bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases. DRAIPL was awarded by National Highway Authority of India and that work was sub-contracted to the assessee firm. During the year under consideration, assessee firm received Rs. 6,26,88,011/- from DRAIPL as payments for the above contract work. These payments were received through bank after deduction of TDS

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase are through debit/credit note. The assessee has not submitted any iota of evidence how goods come to its possession and how it has again resent to M/s Symphonia & Graphics Pvt. Ltd. The debit note issued has characterized transaction as "Contract A/c but no TDS has been deducted. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has claimed bogus

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

purchase\nand internal development expenses of Rs.2,90,20,819/- in respect of the\nlands transferred to M/s M.M. Reality. As per the details furnished before\nthe Ld. AO, the said expenses had been paid to seven parties / contractors.\nThe assessee had furnished the details of TDS deducted u/s 194C, copy of\nITR acknowledgments and computation of income

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

purchases and sales and direct expenses of share trading were given by the assessee. Therefore, if the trading loss would have been related to share transactions, it would have been reflected in the trading account part. As trading loss has been claimed in the P&L portion and nature of this loss has not been appraised by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus share capital/share premium, pre-arranged bogus LTCG/STCL & unsecured loans etc to various beneficiaries/parties in lieu of commission in cash. Statement of Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has already been recorded before the Directorate of Income Tax (Inv.), Kolkata on several occasions before. In his statement Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia has admitted that he was involved in providing accommodation entries through

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)

bogus turnover to Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT the extent of Rs. 70,02,127/- is deducted and on balance turnover of Rs. 7,45,81,156/- GP rate of 24.14% is applied, resulting in trading addition of Rs. 1,21,41,812/-. 4.4 The assessing officer has observed that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating

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)

bogus turnover to Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT the extent of Rs. 70,02,127/- is deducted and on balance turnover of Rs. 7,45,81,156/- GP rate of 24.14% is applied, resulting in trading addition of Rs. 1,21,41,812/-. 4.4 The assessing officer has observed that the assessee has deposited cash aggregating

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus / inflated, which is nothing but a result of pure suspicion, surmises and conjecture by the AO. These facts are not rebutted by the authorities below. The said chart is as under: Amount Appearing in Income & Amount Appearing In Income S Head Of Difference Expenditure Account of Audit Expenditure- (impounded No Account Report As on 31/03/2015 document) Page- 97, Annex

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus gifts are also brought to tax under\nthis provision.... Thus, in view of above discussion, we are of the view that this\nprovision applies to the transactions where undisclosed/unaccounted Income of a\nperson is brought in his hand by way of purported gifts.”\nIt is submitted that in the instant case, party from whom assessee has purchased\nthe property