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. 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

bogus purchase is treated as\nunexplained expenditure u/s 69C and is proposed and added to the total income of\nthe assesee for the year under consideration and for this addition, tax is being\ncharged u/s 115BBE of the Act. Penalty

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made

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)

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

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

bogus parties and the goods are deemed to have been procured from some other unknown party, and further that in such a case 25% of such purchase is to be disallowed on account of inflation of purchase and saving tax, duties, compliance costs etc. In this manner, ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order dated 08.12.2018. Hence, this appeal before

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 of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

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 of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

bogus transactions. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book containing 315 pages wherein he has submitted all the relied upon evidence such as submission made before lower authorities, statement recorded and relied upon, inspectors report, Extract from the ROC website about the active status of the companies with whom the transactions are recorded extract

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

bogus transactions. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book containing 315 pages wherein he has submitted all the relied upon evidence such as submission made before lower authorities, statement recorded and relied upon, inspectors report, Extract from the ROC website about the active status of the companies with whom the transactions are recorded extract

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

bogus purchase is from M/s Paras Gems & Jewellery amounting to Rs. 110561454/-. Therefore, Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act is initiated

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

bogus purchase but the purchases are held unverifiable as much as 85% of very same purchases has been allowed. It is the case where purchases are not doubted but bills of purchases were held unverifiable because of non-verification thereof from sellers. The addition has been made as trading addition by invoking section 145 (3). Further as stated above

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act is hereby initiated for concealed the particulars of income.” It is submitted that the ld.AO passed assessment order u/s 153A after obtaining prior approval u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Jaipur vide her office letter No. Jt. CIT/Central Range/JPR/2020-21/679 dated

FINESSE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

penalty) preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that amount of alleged bogus purchase

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus purchases of Rs. 46,80,799/- amounting to Rs. 7,02,120/- is being made to the total income of the assessee which represents income from unverifiable sources. Penalty

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus share application , relevant extracts of which are reproduced here as under: “.6.1 On facts also, the assessee has produced before the Assessing Officer copy of share application, confirmation of the cash creditors, copy of PAN, copy of Board resolution, copy of Director’s report, auditor’s report, copy of balance sheet, copy of P&L account, copy of bank

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

penalty though the finding of the AO that assessee was reducing correct profit by making bogus purchases, has been confirmed

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus purchases @ 25% on total purchase of Rs. 44,50,581/- and addition of Rs. 32,38,590/- u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability of trade creditors. Thereafter, the A.O. initiated penalty

NRI-BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. PCIT JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 724/Jpr/2024 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nri-Buildtech (India) Private Limited Cuke The Pcit Vs. Main Road Chopanki, Near Power Jaipur-1, Jaipur. House, Vill- Bilahedi, Bhilwadi, Alwar. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaecn3080A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2024

bogus purchases or unexplained purchases), this addition should have been made u/s 69C whereon tax needs to be charged at special rates as per provisions of section 115BBE. The AO in this case has made addition under regular head resulting in under charging of Tax as the regular addition made is charged at the rate of 30% plus surcharge