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

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

26,48,554/- by disallowing 25% out of alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 31,58,913/- on account of commission paid determining total income at Rs. 5,58,07,470/-. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has after considering the arguments and submission held that

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) while disposing the ground of the assessee The Benches of the Tribunal are also taking a consistent view that where certain purchases remained unverifiable then the addition should be made on the basis of past history and taking into consideration the current events of the case. Taking into consideration the application of GP rate, the Tribunal

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. That on the contrary the ld. Assessing officer completely ignore the confirmation of the parties, payment made through account payee cheque, purchase bills. 7. That it is pertinent to highlight that NO action whatsoever was undertaken by the VAT department against the assessee appellant and the sales made by the assessee has been accepted. The assessee appellant was registered

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.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

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 component is silver, the GP rate is ranging between 5 to 7%. Whereas M/s Kanchwala Gems

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

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 component is silver, the GP rate is ranging between 5 to 7%. Whereas M/s Kanchwala Gems

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)

26 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. assessments, searches and surveys made during the year. 2. The above instruction is issued under section 119(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and would be applicable for assessments made during financial year 2008-09. The instruction may be brought to the notice of all concerned in your Region. ■■ 10. Based

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)

section 145 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are hereby applicable as the books of accounts are not reliable, Therefore, 20 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 with the findings

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken

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

10 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs M/s.J.K. International, Jaipur ACIT 380 ITR 573 and other related judgements which are specifically mentioned in his order and he had rightly concluded that the addition made by the AO without any reference to the seized material is not legally sustainable. Thus this issue was rightly decided

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

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)

26,48,554/- by disallowing 25% out of alleged bogus purchases and Rs. 31,58,913/- on account of commission paid determining total income at Rs. 5,58,07,470/-. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has after considering the arguments and submission held that

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)

26,115 543 T20171000059357 11 to 13 6. 05.10.2017 SVMS /2017-18/GST/921 5,94,720 544 T20171000059210 14 to 16 10 Durga Prasad Sharma vs. ITO 7 05.10.2017 SVMS /2017-18/GST/922 5,32,487 545 - 17 and 18 8. 10.10.2017 SVMS /2017-18/GST/959 6,08,738 207 Weighing slip 19 to 21 9. 11.10.2017 SVMS /2017-18/GST/967 6,18,509 571 T20171000139368

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made

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