M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment order

BEAUTY TAX,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result the purchases made from M/s Mahaveer Textiles have not been proved to be

purchases made from M/s Mahaveer Textiles have not been proved to be 7 M/s Beauty Tax (earlier Florals India) vs. DCIT, Circle-2 bogus by the Revenue and the said additions cannot be sustained in the eye of law in absence of any conclusive evidence brought on record. The ground of appeal taken by the assessee is thus allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

bogus.\nIn this regard, it is submitted that as the income is already declared in the return of\nincome and due taxes has also been paid then making an addition of same\nincome in the total income of the assessee firm will tantamount to double taxation\non single income which has no standing in law.\n\nIn support of this

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

bogus, avoiding Circular No. 37 dated 2nd November 2016 issued by CBDT to allow higher deduction under chapter VIA (u/s 80HHC in this case) on such enhanced profit.” 11. Arguments heard. File perused. 12. It may be mentioned here that when the appeal was listed for hearing of arguments, even though on 17.05.2024, Learned DR for the department initially presented

SHRI RAJ KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

TDS credit, since the claimed credit was not shown in AY 2010-11 rightfully. Further, the mistake of departmental staff become belief of escapement and assessee was slapped notice u/s 148. 7 Shri Raj Kumar Maheshwari, Jaipur. I, therefore request your honour to drop the re-assessment notice as bad in law for the sake of justice and the resultant

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

PADAM PRAKASH KHAANDAKA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) & The Matter Had Not Attained Finality. 3. The Learned Cit Has Erred In Nor Appreciating That Assessment Of Every Assessment Year Is Separate & Depends On The Facts For That Year Only.” M/S Padam Prakash Khandaka. Vs. Acit

bogus expenditures were claimed by the assessee with the sole purpose of evading tax. The books of accounts of the assessee also reveal contradictory figures. In the audit report, the auditor has quantified also reveal contradictory figures. In the audit report, the auditor has quantified items of goods traded/manufactured as Nil whereas sale of items is claimed

SHRI BHARAT KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS was made, the same cannot be said to be genuine. Accordingly, disallowance made is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 3.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the order of the AO. However, these 03 ladies through their authorized representative had submitted the following

RAJASTHAN PATRIKA (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the results ground no

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

M/S. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the results ground no

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

M/S. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the results ground no

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

M/S. RAJASTHAN PATRIKA PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the results ground no

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

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