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

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

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

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

money from these companies as unexplained income of the assessee company as per provision of section 68 of the Act. The ld. AO also added a sum of Rs. 3,25,010/- being the commission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

purchased by Eminent Build Estate through his partner Shri Pradeep Dusad and was sold by Shri Pradeep Dusad to assessee. The ld. AO noted that if the cheque and on-money portion is quantified it will emerge that the assessee out of total consideration of Rs. 10 crore appox paid Rs. 5,14,03,715/- through normal banking channel

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

purchased by Eminent Build Estate through his partner Shri Pradeep Dusad and was sold by Shri Pradeep Dusad to assessee. The ld. AO noted that if the cheque and on-money portion is quantified it will emerge that the assessee out of total consideration of Rs. 10 crore appox paid Rs. 5,14,03,715/- through normal banking channel

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

purchased by Eminent Build Estate through his partner Shri Pradeep Dusad and was sold by Shri Pradeep Dusad to assessee. The ld. AO noted that if the cheque and on-money portion is quantified it will emerge that the assessee out of total consideration of Rs. 10 crore appox paid Rs. 5,14,03,715/- through normal banking channel

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

purchased by Eminent Build Estate through his partner Shri Pradeep Dusad and was sold by Shri Pradeep Dusad to assessee. The ld. AO noted that if the cheque and on-money portion is quantified it will emerge that the assessee out of total consideration of Rs. 10 crore appox paid Rs. 5,14,03,715/- through normal banking channel