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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

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

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

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

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

section 145(3) of the Act, considered the purchases of Rs. 85,18,926/- from following two parties as bogus:- 1. M/s Bhoomi Sales Corporation Rs. 57,91,028/- 2. M/s Saj Enterprises Rs. 27,27,898/- Total Rs. 85,18,926/- The Assessing Officer added 25% of the aforesaid purchases amounting to Rs. 21,29,732/- in the income

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

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

bogus companies before reaching to M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. Moreover M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. was not found functioning on given address. 12. At the outset, the ld. DR has vehemently relied on the order of the A.O. 13. On the contrary, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before

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

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

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) :

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

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

15 2. M/s Mamta Surgical Rs. 74,65,000/- PB 16 PB 16 PB Cotton Industries 17 3. M/s Sanjay Kumar Rs. 20,00,000/- PB 18 PB 18 PB Sandesh Kumar 19 Total (A) Rs.3,09,40,750/- 4. P.R Rathi HUF Rs. 35,00,000/- PB 21 PB 22 PB 23 5. Smt. Shashi Kala Rathi

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

purchases, closing stock details, led to the legitimate Inference that the books/supporting evidences/bills vouchers had not been properly particularly when there was a steep fall in net profit rate, in the year under consideration there was loss of 6.97% of receipts whereas in the immediately preceding year the assessce had declared net profit at 7.23% of receipts 5.5 In view

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PAOTA C ROAD vs. HRDK BULLION AND REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

15,31, 500- Rs.92, 79, 166] claimed in the garb of cash sales amounting to Rs. 1,22,52,334/- is taxed treating it is as income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment order went in appeal before the learned CIT appeal who has granted relief

SHRI JITENDRA OJHA ,SIROHI vs. ITO,, SIROHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

section, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that " ............... Since the ld. AO had not proceeded as per the mandatory provision of law, hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining the impugned asst. order. The same may kindly be cancelled and quashed. Such action and decision ought to have been sue-moto taken

PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

2. That the said deposits were out of sales of the stock made by the assessee and declared in the Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. That the stock purchase and sale transactions were examined by Income Tax Department in a survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act on the business premises of the assessee and the excess stock

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus - Held, yes - Whether since Assessing Officer had drawn an adverse conclusion only on account of non-verifiability of sundry creditors but there being no dispute as regards purchases and trading results having been accepted, addition made under section 68 was not sustainable - Held, yes [Paras 15.2 & 15.3] [In favour of assessee]" In the case of Continental Carbon India

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 10. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee submitted a detailed written submissions on the issue which are as under:- “FACTS: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Prop

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 10. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee submitted a detailed written submissions on the issue which are as under:- “FACTS: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Prop

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 10. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee submitted a detailed written submissions on the issue which are as under:- “FACTS: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Prop