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

bogus purchases were made. The goods purchased from the alleged bogus parties are sold subsequently and sales

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

bogus purchases @ 25% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 21,05,94,215/-. Therefore the assessee

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)

bogus purchases of the held that “On the question of bogus purchase, the matter is remitted

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.

purchased the goods have actually admitted of providing accommodation entries & bogus purchase bills. Therefore, onus was on the appellant

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)

bogus purchases indulged in by the group approximate to Rs. 25,000/- crores were detected. The entire bogus

M/S CLARITY GOLD P. LTD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases. In the case of the assessee, the issue involved is not only of bogus purchases

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)

purchases were made through these concerns are bogus purchases. Further in the case of assessee, where the person

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

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance

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

Bogus purchase and Payments\nagainst the various purchases were shown against the bogus suppliers through crossed

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)

purchase for doing bogus purchase. So, assessee cannot be given clean cheat based modus operandi of purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

bogus purchase. 6. On merits of the issue on making addition @ 25% of alleged bogus purchases

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

bogus purchase bill. Regarding estimation of profits, the ld. CIT(A) applied 15% of the bogus purchases

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)

bogus purchases, and the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases being the profit

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:-

bogus purchases, and the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases being the profit

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases made by you be not treated as bogus purchases u/s 69C of the I.T. Act and added

KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTRUING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases for the year under consideration from some bogus Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. entities. As per the information

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 purchase of Rs 1,73,34,424/- during the year\nfrom a bogus concern.\n3\nITA

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus purchases. It was held that the purchase of scrap could not be termed bogus for the reason