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 purchase while dealing with the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR vs. M/S CLARITY GOLD (P) LTD. [100 CCH 0396 RajHC ] held as under: 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee company derives its income from business

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.

bogus purchase transaction of Rs. 35,09,770/- from the concerns operated by Mr. Jain and his group. The details of the alleged purchase are as under:- PAN of bill Name of Bill Nature Total value of the Provider Provider transaction AALFP0478J Pankaj Exports Purchase Rs. 15,58,560/- AFEPV3695M Malhar Exports Purchase Rs. 15,56,010/- AAFFA6854K Ankita Exports

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 without any basis.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that that assessee Company has filed its e-return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 24.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.79,20,110/-. The assessee Company derives income from Business

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)

Bogus Bills, according to use a bill is a bill. 4.1 A business man during the course of his business purchase the goods locally or from foreign parties mainly on credit. All such parties are income

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income: see A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)". As per judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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)

business accepting the fact that they are indulged in issuing of bogus bills on commission basis and this admission makes all the transactions done by them as mere paper transactions; in the statement Shri Rajendra had categorically admitted to have floated a bogus concern; there are concrete evidences that the assessee indulged in bill shopping from bogus concern of Shri

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 purchase while dealing with the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR vs. M/S CLARITY GOLD (P) LTD. [100 CCH 0396 RajHC ] held as under: 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee company derives its income from business

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

business accepting the fact that they are\nindulged in issuing of bogus bills on commission basis and this admission makes\nall the transactions done by them as mere paper transactions; in the statement\nShri Rajendra had categorically admitted to have floated a bogus concern; there\nare concrete evidences that the assessee indulged in bill shopping from bogus\nconcern of Shri

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 @ 15%. The A.O. has also imposed penalty

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 @ 15%. The A.O. has also imposed penalty

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 of the assessee\nhave been shown in the ITR from business and profession. During the\nassessment proceedings, the AO had reason to believe that the assessee\nis engaged in bogus purchase

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

purchases treating the same to be made to inflate the\nexport profit and directed to treat the same as Income from other sources.\nMeaning which the business profit reduced by this addition and\nconsequently the deduction u/s 80HHC was also reduced and the Income\nfrom other sources increased from this amount. This impacted to the\naddition in total income

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

purchasing it from local market. The assessee carried on business in proprietorship under the name & style of M/s S. Naveen Jewellers. The assessee filed return of income declaring NIL income after claiming set of b/f losses. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and no notice

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

purchases treating the same to be made to inflate the\nexport profit and directed to treat the same as Income from other sources.\nMeaning which the business profit reduced by this addition and\nconsequently the deduction u/s 80HHC was also reduced and the Income\nfrom other sources increased from this amount. This impacted to the\naddition in total income

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business

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)

business needs. 11. Based on these observations made by the AO the assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. 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

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

purchases treating the same to be made to inflate the\nexport profit and directed to treat the same as Income from other sources.\nMeaning which the business profit reduced by this addition and\nconsequently the deduction u/s 80HHC was also reduced and the Income\nfrom other sources increased from this amount. This impacted to the\naddition in total income

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

purchases treating the same to be made to inflate the\nexport profit and directed to treat the same as Income from other sources.\nMeaning which the business profit reduced by this addition and\nconsequently the deduction u/s 80HHC was also reduced and the Income\nfrom other sources increased from this amount. This impacted to the\naddition in total income