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

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

business and indulged in providing accommodation entries. Therefore, the AR of the assessee was further asked to show cause as to why purchases from the above concerns may also not be disallowed @ 15% on the same issue as in M/s Simran Gems treating as bogus purchase and same may not be added in the total income

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

Bogus purchases) rate of 35.02% accepted) view of tax effect (Revised G.P. Rate 37.56%) being lower than 16 Jewels Emporium A Legacy, jaipur. monetary limit. The assessee submits that, it is a well-established preposition of law, based also on jurisdictional pronouncements that, once the provisions of sec 145(3) of the Act are invoked, the estimation of income

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

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

business needs. 11. Based on these observations by the AO the assessment was completed by making 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

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

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

purchase and not reconciled with stock.” 2. The facts of the case are that assessee company derives income from business of manufacturing of jewellery and trading of gem stones. A search & seizure operation under section 132(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out on 20.5.2009 at the business and residence premises of the assessee group. The background

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

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total 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

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: 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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

income from undisclosed sources. 26 TW 511 ACIT Vs. Gem Stones ((ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 14 M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. In this case AO made additions of Rs. 1,05,595/- on account of bogus purchases and unexplained cash credits of Rs. 23,056/- - Both these additions have been deleted in appeal by CIT(A) – Now the tribunal has agreed