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 purchases and the assessee`s books are therefore rejected u/s 145(3) for the same reason. The ld. AO has stated above facts without :- - Confronting the appellant with the material in her possession which has been considered by her as adverse. - Confronting the appellant with the statements of parties recorded during the course of search and which have been

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)

bogus purchase and income had escaped assessment. Therefore, appellant case falls in above exception and instruction numbering 2/2008 dated 22-02-2008 does not apply. 5.12 Keeping in view the facts in entirety, as discussed above and appellants failure to establish that the purchases are genuine it is held that the books of the appellant were not tenable

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 sale and purchases to substantiate her deposits. Based on the above reasons and considering the provision of section 68 of the Act ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 44,61,000/- in the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging

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 bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 DCIT vs. Sunder

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

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)

12% of such bogus purchase. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Application contending that our High Court in that case while estimating the profit also held that in para 6 that “in our consider opinion, taking into account, the industry which is running the business, the addition which have been made on the Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. basis

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

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)

12-09-2024 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Both the appeals of the assessee relates to the issue of levy of penalty under the provision of section 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [ for short Act ]raising therein following grounds of appeal; SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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:-

12-09-2024 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Both the appeals of the assessee relates to the issue of levy of penalty under the provision of section 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [ for short Act ]raising therein following grounds of appeal; SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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)

12 Durga Prasad Sharma vs. ITO of Act to serve a notice of being heard on the assessee. After considering the reply under sec 148A(C) of Act the AO has to decide on the basis of material available on record, including reply of the assessee, whether or not it is fit case to issue notice under section

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

section 145(2) of the Act. 16. While relying on decision in N.K. Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, learned DR for the Revenue has contended that therein the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers, 12

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)

section 145(3) of the Act to estimate the income of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we while setting aside the adverse finding of the lower authorities against the genuineness of the claimed purchases and exports direct the A.O. To delete the addition of Rs. 3,56,250/- sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). The grounds of the appeal preferred

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3), consequential rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, treatment of purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- made by the assessee from M/s. Sun Diam as not verifiable and consequential addition of Rs. 7,99,999/-, being 25% of above mentioned alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/-, and levy of tax thereon. In support

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

12%\nas decided by the jurisdictional high court. The Id. DR did not controvert\nthis finding of the jurisdictional high court. Respectfully, following the rate of\ngross profit to be estimated in case where the issue of bogus purchase are\ninvolved and the estimation of profit we noted that in all the case the profit\nis higher that what

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus purchases on the basis of corroborative information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai is not sustainable and only a trading addition of Rs. 41,23,468/- be made by applying GP rate of 12%?” 2. Without prejudice to the above, whether having upheld the applicability of section

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

12%\nas decided by the jurisdictional high court. The Id. DR did not controvert\nthis finding of the jurisdictional high court. Respectfully, following the rate of\ngross profit to be estimated in case where the issue of bogus purchase are\ninvolved and the estimation of profit we noted that in all the case the profit\nis higher that what

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR vs. SEWA STEEL PVT. LTD., BHIWADI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.573& 181/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13& 2013-14 The ACIT Circle-2, Alwar cuke Vs. M/s. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd. E-90-C, Industrial Area, Tijara Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 4307 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Laxman Singh, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

Section 43(1)of the Act to reduce the amount of investment subsidy of Rs.39,45,868/- from cost of fixed assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation allowable to the assessee as a deduction.’’ 2.0 It is pertinent to mention that the intimation was sent by the Registry by Registered Post to the assessee to its last known