JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by the Ld. AO\nis bad in law and facts.\nf) Your honour, if the Ld. A.O. disallows the alleged bogus\npurchases but he does not dispute the corresponding sales\ntransactions, then no disallowance can be made by A.O. There are\nnumber of case laws on this subject, few of these case laws are as\nunder

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

money many time in a year to purchase the diamond from gray market by cash. Thus I am of the 3 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs M/s.J.K. International, Jaipur view that it is reasonable and justifiable to treat 25% of the unverifiable / bogus purchases of Rs. S9,02,74,407/- which works

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt. 6. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) – [DOD:05.07.2017] 23 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Cash Credits – Company – Share application money – Issuance of shares – Genuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee – Non-appearance

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Almost all the transactions in the alleged\nbank account are related to bogus purchases entries given to LMJ group M/s\nSatyatej Vyappaar Pvt.Ltd. Kolkatha is a bogus company & it director is a Dummy.\nTherefore, the assessee company is considered to be a beneficiary of receiving\naccommodation entries in the shape of share capital.\n3. Further

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 income under section 68 of the income tax act 1961. Ground-2. While granting relief, the learned CIT Appeal has erred by ignoring the statement of Sri Amit Gidra, the main accountant of the group, as detailed in para 10 of the assessment order, wherefrom it is clear that the assessee has been indulging in bogus transactions where actual

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 income under section 68 of the income tax act 1961. Ground-2. While granting relief, the learned CIT Appeal has erred by ignoring the statement of Sri Amit Gidra, the main accountant of the group, as detailed in para 10 of the assessment order, wherefrom it is clear that the assessee has been indulging in bogus transactions where actual

M/S SAFE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-4, JAIPUR

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

money received from the following parties as unexplained:- 2 M/s Safe Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO S.No. Name of the Company Amount 1. Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Realgold Trading Rs. 10 Lacs Co. Pvt. Ltd.) 2. Blazer Venture Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 15 Lacs 3. Sepia Venture Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 25 Lacs 4. Alka Diamond Industries Ltd. Rs. 15 Lacs

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

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

purchase the peace of mind so the lower authorities treated Rs. 2,64,00,000 = (2,79,00,000-15,00,000) as unexplained. The ld. AO neither found any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of the entries of sale, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of non-existing of stock as on the date of sales

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

money into white and by applying the\nprinciple of human probabilities added the share sale receipts as other source\nincome of the assessee from unexplained cash credits u/s 68. Similar findings\nwere made by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Arvind M Kariya Vs ACIT (ITA No.\n7024/Mum/2010). Reliance is also placed in the case of Somnath Mani

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Unexplained investment which assess has introduced in business in the form of bogus profit earned through reversal trade. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income.” From perusal of above, it is evident that in entire proceedings, stand of AO has been changing consistently

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

money of the assessee in books of accounts. Further during the course of search the department has not found any undisclosed source of income of assessee for the year under consideration by which this much of income could be earned which also proves that the share capital received by the assessee is genuine. CIT Vs Bharat Engineering and Construction

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

unexplained cash credits/unexplained money merely on the basis surmises and conjectures. The cash so deposited was accumulated cash which was received against/for sales made by him over the period of the year prior to demonetization. As per audited books of account, the cash balance of Rs. 7,09,65,744/- was available with the assessee

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

money by way\nof booking bogus sub-contract expenses and purchases and assessee firm is one\nof the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction of Rs.6,46,31,000/-\nwith M/s DRAIPL during the year under consideration which is liable to be added\nto the total income of the assessee and alleging that the same has not included

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

money under tax bracket.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company e-filed its return of income for the previous year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 4,37,53,418/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for complete scrutiny

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)

money u/s 69A of the Act. And made the addition of Rs.52,54,225/- u/s 69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary

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)

money u/s 69A of the Act. And made the addition of Rs.52,54,225/- u/s 69A. 6.The ld. AO further stated that It is also noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee, purchased mutual fund of Rs. 7,50,000/- but failed in furnishing documentary evidence substantiating the source of the same. Therefore, in absence to supporting documentary