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

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

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

10,586/ to cover any possible leakage of revenue on 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 and the appellant gets

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)

section 145(3). Ground no. 3 relates to trading addition of Rs. 1,95,137/- by taking the G.P @ 30%. Ground no. 8, 9 and 10 relate to disallowance of unverifiable purchase particularly cash purchase and URD amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- 3.2 The aforesaid issues have come up for consideration in the appeal of the appellant himself

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

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

bogus purchase bills alongwith its sister concerns. The directors of the company were confronted with the enquiries conducted by the Investigation Directorate and details of the same have already discussed by the AO in the assessment order reproduced above. 5.8 During the course of search conducted at the premises of the appellant a number of incriminating documents in the form

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10 rate of 30% was upheld of section 145(3) were not invoked. The by Hon’ble Supreme assessee company deals into silver Court in case where jewellery studded with precious and semi- purchases are alleged as precious stones and since the major bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

section 69C is not attracted. The relevant para of he judgement are 10 to 12 and the same are reproduced (mentioned at page 24 of the ld. CIT(A) ‘s order).. Considering all the above, I am of the view that even if 25% of purchases from concerns are treated as bogus

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

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

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with

purchase the land for Rs.46,80,000/- for which the assessee needs to kept cash in hand. The copy of agreement is hereby enclosed. (PB 31 to 34). At the time of agreement the assessee has paid only Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and balance amount was to be paid after the regularize and getting patta form

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) in view of bogus purchases and the admission of the assessee through its Director Sh. K.K.Ameriya in his statement u/s ITA. No. 46,47,363 & 478/JP/2015 5 M/s Gem Mart India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 132(4) that the company was obtained bogus purchase bill. Regarding estimation of profits, the ld. CIT(A) applied

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

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

10 rate of 30% was upheld of section 145(3) were not invoked. The by Hon’ble Supreme assessee company deals into silver Court in case where jewellery studded with precious and semi- purchases are alleged as precious stones and since the major bogus