Search: bogus purchases

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 153A8 Addition to Income7 Section 145(3)5 Section 143(3)4 Section 684 Section 1324 Section 143(2)3 Section 142(1)3 Section 143(1)2 Deduction2 Cash Deposit2 Demonetization2

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

Section 131Section 69

bogus entities and never produced complete details and books of accounts before the AO while deleting addition of Rs.7,82,95,551/-. Ld. DR also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) had also erred in accepting the verbal contention of the assessee that purchase of Rs.10,00,68,034/- were bifurcated in the name of seven parties to obtain loan

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , PAOTA C ROAD vs. J.M. METALS, BASNI

ITA 257/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

purchases nor the opening and closing\nstock. Meaning thereby that the AO has not doubted the statement of account\nnor pointed out any discrepancy in the books of account under the heads stock,\npurchases, sales, creditors or debtors. In the present case, nothing could have\nbeen pointed out except non-compliance of notice u/s 133(6) has no evidentiary\nvalue

THAKUR BUILDCON (P) LTD. ,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAJSAMAND

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s ground stands partly allowed

ITA 345/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.345/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Rajsamand बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Rajasthan-313 324. Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.346/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. बनाम/ Rajsamand Thakurgarh N.H. 8 Rajasthan-313 324. Sevali, Rajsamand Vs. Rajasthan-313 324. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment, the assessee was saddled with certain peak additions of Rs.216.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases and the same is the sole subject matter of cross- appeals before us since Ld. CIT(A) has granted partial relief to the assessee in the impugned order. 2. The effective

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

133(6), which have not been used by the lower authorities, hence the observations of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and incorrect and liable to be ignored. 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) stated that the argument of the appellant is that unbilled sale is the difference because of following percentage completion method as per accounting standard. If this

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

133(6), which have not been used by\nthe lower authorities, hence the observations of the ld. CIT(A) is wrong and incorrect\nand liable to be ignored.\n2.3 The ld. CIT(A) stated that the argument of the appellant is that unbilled sale is the\ndifference because of following percentage completion method as per accounting\nstandard. If this

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

Section 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat High

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Bogus. The AO has arbitrarily without making any inquiry has doubted the identity of the Dubai Bank accounts & declared as ‘Undisclosed’. Also, the Ld. AO without assigning any strong reason or document evidence the audited financial statements of Aptus Trading DMCC and simply declared the funds provided by Mr. Arpit to Mr. Suresh as not explained. 9. It would