SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded in the books of account on the date of search. Therefore

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded in the books of account on the date of search. Therefore

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded in the books of account on the date of search. Therefore

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

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

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

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded in the books of account on the date of search. Therefore

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase and sale and LTCG arising from the sale of equity shares of the listed companies are duly recorded in the books of account. Therefore, it is not the case of any income of the specified year 9 JCIT VS R.P. WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD, AJMER representing the entry in the other documents which has not been recorded

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

undisclosed sources — assessment — assessee trading in finished fabrics — whether purchases themselves bogus — whether parties from whom such purchases were made bogus — questions of fact — tribunal finding assessee did purchase cloth and sell finished fabrics — not entire purchase price but profit element embedded in purchases liable to tax — Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

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

bogus long term capital gain while no long term capital gain was surrendered by the appellant. Therefore the penalty was imposed on incorrect and misconceived finding. d) there is no finding/reason/conclusion in the penalty order regarding imposing the penalty on income of Rs. 7,51,77,115/- declared in Income Tax Return. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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)

bogus purchases in view of elaborate reasons recorded in the assessment order. The entire deposits in the bank accounts of these parties were treated as assessee's income on protective basis. 4. Mr. J.P. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that 25% of Rs. 2.92 crores is undisclosed

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

bogus purchase was made – addition not challenged by assessee in order to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation – AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) vide the assessment order itself – at the end of the Assessment order, Ld. AO mentioned “penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated separately for concealment of income and furnishing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

purchased in her name. She ultimately expired on 18.08.2009 and therefore, cheques were deposited by the donee in their bank account on 19.08.2009. These facts were also stated by the assessee in reply to question no. 1 of his statement u/s 131 dated 19.10.2012 recorded by ADIT (Inv.) - II, Jaipur. Thus, it is evident that gift of Rs. 2.10 crores

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

purchased in her name. She ultimately expired on 18.08.2009 and therefore, cheques were deposited by the donee in their bank account on 19.08.2009. These facts were also stated by the assessee in reply to question no. 1 of his statement u/s 131 dated 19.10.2012 recorded by ADIT (Inv.) - II, Jaipur. Thus, it is evident that gift of Rs. 2.10 crores

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

purchased in her name. She ultimately expired on 18.08.2009 and therefore, cheques were deposited by the donee in their bank account on 19.08.2009. These facts were also stated by the assessee in reply to question no. 1 of his statement u/s 131 dated 19.10.2012 recorded by ADIT (Inv.) - II, Jaipur. Thus, it is evident that gift of Rs. 2.10 crores