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)

10 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO It is pertinent to note that while the assessee relies heavily on books of account, these books are rendered unreliable when supported by unverifiable purchases and suspicious timing of sales. The fact that such high-value cash deposits were made immediately after demonetization, and were attributed to sales to unknown customers against bogus purchases, raises

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 bills pertains to diamonds [ bills at page 4,13 & 24 ]. The profit in this diamond business computed at page 41 comes to 5.96 % as computed here in below : Sales of Diamond Rs. 3,19,10,125/- Closing stock of Diamond Rs. 29,93,033/- Total Rs. 3,49,03,158/- Purchase of Diamond

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)

section 132(4) of the I.T. Act and relevant part of the statement was extracted in the assessment order. Thus, based on the information received it is observed that the assessee Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited is one of the beneficiaries and has obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,21,93,468/- from the concerns

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)

10(SC) has 15 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya held that even payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchasers. (f) It is also of relevance to mention here that under section 101, 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, the onus lies upon the assessee to prove all the expenses including purchases

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

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)

Section 44AB and report in form No.3CB are being submitted from time to time. The assessee during the year declares the G.P.(%) at 10.77%. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3. That assessee was assessed u/s 148 of the Act vide order dated 25.01.2016 wherein the assessee was alleged for indulging in taking the accommodation entry

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:-

Section 44AB and report in form No.3CB are being submitted from time to time. The assessee during the year declares the G.P.(%) at 10.77%. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3. That assessee was assessed u/s 148 of the Act vide order dated 25.01.2016 wherein the assessee was alleged for indulging in taking the accommodation entry

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 bills from\nthe above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat\nname of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen\nJewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to\nRs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant\n5\nITA No. 453/JP/2024\nDCIT

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\npurchases to be deleted.\nii. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v.\n16\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\nAAACJ8517G-JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED\nΑ.Υ. 2018-19\nITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051546840(1)\nPage 6\nJagdish Thakkar [2022] 145 taxmann.com 414 held that\nWhere assessee-proprietor, engaged in resale

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)

10,586/ to cover any possible leakage of revenue on Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. account of bogus purchases which works out to Rs. 6,31,74,635/-. Since the appellant has already declared Rs. 5,16,97,909/- as the GP for the year under consideration, therefore addition to the extent of Rs. 1,14,76,726/- is sustained

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchase form M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company. Further perusal of GSTR-1 data of assessee has revealed that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd has not filed its ITR for A.Y. 2018-19, accordingly the purchase made by the assessee amounting Rs.89,03,956/- was disallowed and was added in the income of assessee as unexplained

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 activity

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

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\n5,98,789/-\n5,98,789/-\

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus in view of the following: 1. The assessee had purchased 12500 shares at the rate of Rs. 15/- per share ii. In consideration of purchase of shares, payment was made through account payee cheque, which stood debited in the bank statement of the assessee. Copy of documents evidencing purchase as well as payment of shares was submitted before lower

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

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\nAY 2000-01\nAY 2003-04\

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

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 (after 5,38,911 60,57,063 1,31,02,491 allowing expenses @10% of turnover ) Total Addition by AO 5,38,911 60,57,063 1,31,02,491 First appellate proceeding / First round of litigation Govindam Export vs. DCIT 9. The assessee challenged the finding of the ld. AO for all these years before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

10(23C)(vi) of the I.T. Act It is primary condition there must be an investment or 28 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018 & 357/JP/2019_ DCIT(E) Vs M/s Modern School Society deposit of funds of the institution. Therefore in order to ascertain whether such investment/ deposit is in violation of the mode prescribed u/s 11(5) of the I.T. Act there must