INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Addition of Rs. 28,71,891 being 0.50% of total purchases. 1. Brief Facts 1.1. Ld. lower authorities on the basis of information received from DCIT, Mumbai considered the purchases made from M/s Simran Gems, M/s Karishma Diamonds Pvt Ltd, M/s Mihir Diamonds, M/s Krishna Diam and M/s Parshwanath Gems Pvt Ltd run by Jain Brothers to be bogus purchases

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

addition by estimating 30% being the gross profit as estimated in the first round of litigation as against the gross profit declared by the assessee @ 11.60 %. The bench noted that recently the jurisdictional Hon’ble Rajasthan High court while dealing the estimation of gross profit on account of bogus purchase while dealing with the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

addition of Rs. 5,26,48,554/- by disallowing 25% out of alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 31,58,913/- on account of commission paid determining total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

addition cannot be made\nunless such information is provided to the assessee and opportunity of cross\nexamination is provided more so when assessee placed on record all the\nevidences. The relevant findings are as under:\nHeadnote: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

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

income of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR The ld. CIT(A) has estimated 15% of the profit on such purchases, accordingly given partial relief. In quantum appeal, the Tribunal have confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

income of 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR The ld. CIT(A) has estimated 15% of the profit on such purchases, accordingly given partial relief. In quantum appeal, the Tribunal have confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

bogus purchase is made on substantative basis and addition on account of GP rate is made on protective basis. In a nutshell, the AO made the addition of Rs. 11,84,063/- and in the computation of income

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

bogus purchase is made on substantative basis and addition on account of GP rate is made on protective basis. In a nutshell, the AO made the addition of Rs. 11,84,063/- and in the computation of income

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

bogus purchase is made on substantative basis and addition on account of GP rate is made on protective basis. In a nutshell, the AO made the addition of Rs. 11,84,063/- and in the computation of income

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

income and the AO has treated the agreement as well as transaction as bogus. Hence, the department cannot take a contradictory stand by saying that agreement found during the course of search is an incriminating material and at the same time it is held to be bogus. The ld.AR has also raised the legal objection that the Revenue

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.

addition of 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 35,09,770/- made from 3 parties without any basis. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously in law and on facts in sustaining the validity of notice issued by ld. AO u/s 148 of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

addition related to the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from the concerns managed by Shri Rajendra Jain and his associates we deal both the grounds together. 13.1 Brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee is an Individual, engaged in export of gems & jewellery under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. Return of income

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the approval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as nothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section 153D of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

bogus but were made from\nthe parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being the\nposition, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in\nsuch purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear\nby the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken

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)

addition of Rs. 80,48,367/-, being 25% of alleged bogus purchases without any basis.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that that assessee Company has filed its e-return of income

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

addition the income so assessed in not tenable in the eye of law. In fact the AO neither found any concrete and conclusive evidence of back dating of the entries of sale, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of bogus purchases

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

Income Tax, Patiala in ITA No.\n275/Chandi/2024 (Kindly see in Case law paper book page no. 155-177) wherein facts are\nabsolutely identical and the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchase

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

addition made merely on the ground that\nthe assessee is accounted bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income