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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

bogus and if assessee has accepted the same. The order of Sales Tax authorities can be relied on by the AO to doubt the genuineness of the purchase transactions. In such a situation the burden is on the assessee to prove that though the sales tax authorities have taken the view that purchases are genuine. (iv) Babulal C. Borana

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)

unexplained credit. As these two grounds are interconnected we deal it appropriate to dispose it together. The brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee having filed here return of income her case was came up for scrutiny assessment under CASS. Required statutory notices were issued and the assessee has filed 37 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO the details

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. In view of above, addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be restricted by applying appropriate g.p. rate on sale of Rs.57,930/-. Ground No.3

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. In view of above, addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be restricted by applying appropriate g.p. rate on sale of Rs.57,930/-. Ground No.3

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

invest share capital cannot be treated as bogus if they are registered and have been assessed. Once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such companies, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish their case. Reliance on statements of third parties who have not been subjected to cross examination is not permissible. Voluminous documents produced

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)

investment in acquiring the goods which have been found subject of undisclosed sales.” PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd (Bombay High Court) INCOME TAX APPEAL (IT) NO.1330 OF 2017 S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Though the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

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 of such\nstatements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to\nappellant

GARGI GLOBAL ACADEMY SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

unexplained investment. Since the income owned up by the two individuals in the settlement proceedings are on account of receipt of fees by them and not on account of impugned cash payment in land and rather the impugned cash payment for the land is not leading to any tax liability for the two individuals and is rather leading

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

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

bogus purchase/ unexplained investment. It is beyond understanding as to why the AO has given so much credence to the VAT return

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

unexplained investment in the immovable property in the name of benamidaar of Smt. Vijay Laxmi Verma. Based on whatever material is available on file and in absence of any new submission/finding and any other material for which the appellant was provided so many opportunities, I do not find any infirmity in the addition made by the AO. This Ground

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus purchases was justified 5. 178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 6. 186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd 8. 250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded

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

unexplained credit in the year of purchase and not in the year of write off made. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has 33 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta not considered the observations of ITAT Kolkata bench in the case

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

unexplained credit in the year of purchase and not in the year of write off made. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has 33 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta not considered the observations of ITAT Kolkata bench in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

unexplained investment.\nDuring remand proceedings, it is clear that assessee sold the land vide\nregistered sale deed dated 29.12.2010 and the details of payment received is as\nunder:-\nSr. No.\nDetails of payment on sale\nAmount\n1.\nAs per agreement dated 12.06.2006 (Excluding\nRIICO Dues)\n55,01,000\n2.\nRIICCO Dues on 01.06.2010\n2,78,68,244\n3.\nRIICCO Dues

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

unexplained investment not recorded in the books\ntaxable u/s 69 of the Act. Accordingly the addition was confirmed.\nFurther the alternative contention that only gross profit on such sales can\nbe taxed is also rejected for the reason that assessee has not proved\nthat unaccounted sales are made from accounted purchase for which\nreference was made to the decision

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals