VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assessee's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the 7 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT assessee

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 or inflated. But it is also true fact that there is no explanation with regard to the difference in figures of sales and freight as appearing in the VAT return (Rs. 9,60,65,836 and Rs. 17,48,940) and in the audited books of accounts (Rs. 9,40,65,836 and Rs. 17,48,940). Therefore

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus purchases would not change the fact that the assessee produced all the necessary details at the time of scrutiny assessment completed U/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all relevant material necessary for assessment and even there is no allegation

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus purchases would not change the fact that the assessee produced all the necessary details at the time of scrutiny assessment completed U/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all relevant material necessary for assessment and even there is no allegation

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus purchases would not change the fact that the assessee produced all the necessary details at the time of scrutiny assessment completed U/s 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all relevant material necessary for assessment and even there is no allegation

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR vs. SEWA STEEL PVT. LTD., BHIWADI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.573& 181/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13& 2013-14 The ACIT Circle-2, Alwar cuke Vs. M/s. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd. E-90-C, Industrial Area, Tijara Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 4307 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Laxman Singh, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

depreciation allowable to the assessee as a deduction.’’ 2.0 It is pertinent to mention that the intimation was sent by the Registry by Registered Post to the assessee to its last known address available on record to appear before the Bench for argument of the case but the Post office returned the Registered AD Dak mentioning on the envelop that

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

bogus purchases which is approximately equally to the G.P. shown by the assessee and the same has rightly been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the said order should be confirmed. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing officer has rejected the books of accounts

RAJ ANSH AUTO WHEELS,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

bogus without properly appreciating the facts and making addition thereof ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure in the P&L A/c in respect of purchase of furniture. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of claim of depreciation

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, it was a case of bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee. Such a ground cannot be a good ground for imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s K.C. Builders Vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 held that mere omission from the return of an item of receipt

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that warranted the imposition of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act…”. 2.21 Lower Authorities have failed to bring to the fore any material which can to accepted as an evidence for falsity

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

purchases and transportation and other items mentioned above. These reasons were valid reasons for exercise of power under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not required 40 ITA 04/JP/2021_ Shree Cement Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT to discuss these aspects in its order and that the assessee had explanation to the points made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

purchases made from the said entity are duly recorded in the books of account and were subjected to the verification and examination of the AO, then the reopening of the assessment even on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing Mumbai after 4 years from the end of the assessment year is not permitted as it will amount

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus transactions, re- opening u/s 147 is justified. (vi) What is to be seen at the stage of recording the reasons is existence of belief based on faithful appreciation of material which has live link to an income escaping assessment, but not the established fact of escapement of income by detailed investigation or legal analysis. In other words

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchase bills. At the time of recording of the reasons the Assessing Officer apparently was not having any idea about the nature of the transactions entered into by the assessee. In the reasons recorded there is no mention about the nature of the transactions. As per provision of section 147 an assessment can be reopened if the Assessing Officer

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(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)

bogus expenses under the head direct expenses, salary & wages & depreciation on alleged execution of supply of precast finished goods to its sister concern M/s Symphonia & Graphics Private Limited. Therefore he made 7 Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO disallowance of claim of direct expenses of Rs.1,32,93,450, Salary & Wages of Rs. 18,72,000 and depreciation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

purchase receipts\n3. Sale bill cum contract note (Annexure A/5)\n4. Copy of Demat Account\n5. Copy of Bank Account showing the sale receipts\n6. Copy of Return of Income for AY 2016-17 where assessee has\ndeclared income of Rs.45,14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based