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: Though the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed

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 were disallowed and upheld. It is held that onus was upon the assessee to prove genuineness of purchases

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 was based on third

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

disallowed 25% of bogus purchase. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified

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)

bogus purchase made from the concerned of Sh. Rajendra Jain and his group. The ld. AO disallowed 20% of the purchase

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases was held justified 2. 316 ITR 274 (Guj) - Sanjay Oil Cakes Ind. - disallowance of 25% of bogus

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 purchases. The AO had disallowed 25% of purchases amounting to Rs. 43,33,606/- on the basis that these

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.

disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,77,442/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases. 5.6 As can be seen, information

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)

disallowed an amount of Rs. 80,48,367/- being 25% of alleged purchases. 5.6 As can be seen, information was available before the AO as given by DGIT(inv) Mumbai, which demonstrated that the suppliers from whom the appellant claimed to have effected purchases are providing 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

disallowance @ 15% of the bogus purchases. In the case of the assessee, the issue involved is not only of bogus

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

disallowed 25% of bogus purchase, which came to Rs. 15,13,844/-, added the same to the income of the assessee

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 and Vijay Group and Lalwani Group. Before completing assessment the Assessing Officer has not provided either the results of surveys or the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Lalwani and Others so that assessee could furnish his defense. Hence when the material used by the Assessing Officer was not provided to be assessee, the assessment proceedings become

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

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

disallowed purchase expenditure making the additions treating the purchases as bogus. Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal inter-alia on the ground

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)

Disallowance out of bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that

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:-

Disallowance out of bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that

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 therefore\naddition made as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by the Ld. AO\nis bad in law and facts.\nf) Your honour, if the Ld. A.O. disallows

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus based on statements of certain people stated to be persons belonging to the concerns from whom the assessee had made purchases, as being concerns engaged in providing accommodation entries without involving actual delivery of goods. Further disallowance

M/S. G.B.IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases in his books of accounts. In such circumstances, it was not possible for him to ascertain true picture of profit rate. Thus, he rejected the assessee's books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and disallowed