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)

prices but the case of completely bogus billing and such billing obtained to reduce the profits by the same equal amount to the amount in bills. In such a case the entire amount of such bogus bills is required to be added back to the income of the assesse. The above is a simplistic view of the matter and there

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

transferred to Unnati Alloys Private Limited (i.e. Purchases claimed by them from Unnati Alloys Private Limited or credits extended by them to Unnati Alloys Private Limited ) were identified and assessee was found to be one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries in the grab of purchase to the extent of Rs. 21,05,94,215/-. The director of these

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

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

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.

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

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.

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellant has submitted that Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain or any of the person whose statements were being relied upon by the Id. AO, was neither prop nor partner/director in alleged bogus concerns and all such parties had given their confirmations about selling the goods

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)

transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellant has submitted that Sh. Bhanwar Lal Jain or any of the person whose statements were being relied upon by the Id. AO, was neither prop nor partner/director in alleged bogus concerns and all such parties had given their confirmations about selling the goods

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(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)

price without GST is Rs.89,03,956/- i.e. 105,06,669X100 */. 118) The other documentary proofs proving genuine purchases and sales are: S. No. Nature of records P.B. page 1. Purchase / sales of goods of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Metal 49 2 Ledger account of said M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Metal & Salt 50 3. Bank statement with SBI evidencing cheque payments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

transferred pursuant to the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

transferred pursuant to the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

price of jewellery depends on rate of gold on particular date which fluctuates day to day and no businessman will made credit sale to unknown person and incurred loss due to fluctuation in the rate of gold. j) In the telephonic verification of the debtors on random base it is found that they denied to recognized any such purchase

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

prices are determined by market forces. Thus, facts being different, the aforesaid caselaw so relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) is not applicable in the case of appellant. Ld. AR has also rightly submitted that facts in the case of CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. so relied upon by ld. CIT(A) are also different then

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus long term\ncapital as exempt from tax u/s. 10(38) is not correct and there is no such case of the\nassessee. The assessee out of the regular income invested in the stock of companies\nwith a view to earn the profit but in fact the company was suffering from the price\nreduction even though staying invested

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

prices are determined by market forces. Thus, facts being different, the aforesaid case law so relied upon by the CIT(A) is not applicable in the case of assessee. The Ld. AR has also rightly submitted that facts in the case of CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. so relied upon by ld. CIT(A) are also different from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

price variation was more than the range of thousands rupee per quintal per day. Various issues relating to stock movements as well as negative stock or excess closing stock raised arises mainly due to the reason that stock report made based on the impounded record by the ld. AO was on the basis of invoice date (which is actually also