SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in restricting the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on account of Solid Waste Management System upto the amount as claimed in the return

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellant has submitted that Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain or any of the person whose statements were being relied upon by the Id. AO, was neither prop nor partner/director in alleged bogus concerns and all such parties had given their confirmations about selling the goods

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellant has submitted that Sh. Bhanwar Lal Jain or any of the person whose statements were being relied upon by the Id. AO, was neither prop nor partner/director in alleged bogus concerns and all such parties had given their confirmations about selling the goods

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(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)

price without GST is Rs.89,03,956/- i.e. 105,06,669X100 */. 118) The other documentary proofs proving genuine purchases and sales are: S. No. Nature of records P.B. page 1. Purchase / sales of goods of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Metal 49 2 Ledger account of said M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Metal & Salt 50 3. Bank statement with SBI evidencing cheque payments

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

prices are determined by market forces. Thus, facts being different, the aforesaid caselaw so relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) is not applicable in the case of appellant. Ld. AR has also rightly submitted that facts in the case of CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. so relied upon by ld. CIT(A) are also different then

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus long term\ncapital as exempt from tax u/s. 10(38) is not correct and there is no such case of the\nassessee. The assessee out of the regular income invested in the stock of companies\nwith a view to earn the profit but in fact the company was suffering from the price\nreduction even though staying invested

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

prices are determined by market forces. Thus, facts being different, the aforesaid case law so relied upon by the CIT(A) is not applicable in the case of assessee. The Ld. AR has also rightly submitted that facts in the case of CIT Vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. so relied upon by ld. CIT(A) are also different from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

price variation was more than the range of thousands rupee per quintal per day. Various issues relating to stock movements as well as negative stock or excess closing stock raised arises mainly due to the reason that stock report made based on the impounded record by the ld. AO was on the basis of invoice date (which is actually also

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

bogus purchases, the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Gujarat has decided issue in favour of the revenue. The Ld CIT (A)\nhad also put the para 6 of the aforesaid order, where-in, the entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices debited in the trading account is\ndisallowed by the court.\nIt is ample clear that the aforesaid

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price through fictitious invoices in the name of the parties mentioned in the letter. 3.4 In response to the Final Show cause notice the A/R of the assessee filed written submission on 23rd Dec., 2016. The assessee contended that the address taken from purchase bills has been supplied, further, during the year in some of the cases the amount

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions merely giving a colour of authenticity by creating a façade of transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of LTCG by well-organized network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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 and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG. We find that in the instant case, the addition has been made only on the basis ofthe suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares isunusually high. The revenue had not brought any material on record to supportits finding that there has been collusion / connivance between

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)

purchases along with copy of the books related to the purchase and sales made by the assessee without supporting bills and invoices - HELD THAT:-As brought to notice by the Ld. A.R that assessee is into dry fish business and his accounts are audited for the last seven (7) years. - the profit embedded in sales amount has been accepted

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred back to the JAO as soon as the assessment proceedings are completed. So, section 144B of the Act lays down the role of NFAC and the units under it for the specific purpose of conduct of assessment proceedings in a specific case in a particular Assessment Year. This cannot be construed to be meaning that the JAO is bereft

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus scrip transactions during the year as under :- Name of Sale price Purchase price Transfer Exempt income company (in Rs.) (in Rs.) expenses