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

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases

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

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases

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 from four companies. The A.O. has not examined the information received by him to verify whether assessee has made any purchases from these parties and whether the same is reflected in the accounts or not. The reasons recorded are vague, all consequent proceeding are also illegal and invalid. The AO mechanically and blindly 7 ITA 1383/JP/2019 & 09/JP/2020_

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

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases

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

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases

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

section 145(3) and made trading addition of Rs.18,19,533/- by applying 25% of the alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/-. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has upheld the rejection of books of accounts and has restricted the trading addition of Rs 3 lacs. Against the said findings, both the Revenue as well as assessee

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

bogus purchases of amounting to\nRs.26,76,210/-from the two entities Madan Lal Madho Prasadand\nM/s Kalki Trading Company amounting to Rs.15,51,210/- and Rs.\n11,25,000/- respectively\nThat the Humble Appellant Paid through NEFT to\nMadanLalMadhoPrasad (AABPG 0387 R) Rs.3,00,000/- on Dt 28-\n11-2017 &Rs.5,00,000/- on Dt 31-01-2018, thus

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)

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Case law Paper Book Pages

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted\nthe evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through\nbank, dematerialization of shares in the DEMAT account, allotment of\namalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price,\npayment of STT etc. In absence of any contrary fact, the mere reliance by the\nAssessing Officer on the report

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchases were bogus has no legs to stand on. The finding of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the said liability which was converted into an unsecured loan and subsequently stood repaid has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. Further, the reliance placed by the ITATon the judgment of this Court in Shri Vardhman Overseas (supra

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, and non­existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to find any fault

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt.\n4. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)\n[DOD:05.07.2017]\nCash Credits\nCompany Share application money Issuance of shares\nGenuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee\nNon-appearance of such parties before Assessing Officer irrelevant – Deletion

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Caselaw Paper Book Pages

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage of the assessment

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage of the assessment

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 147 in the reason was typographical error, if considered correct, 46 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT non-observation of such serious typographical error by two senior officers i.e. (i) Range Head forwarding reason to approval authority with recommendation for approval and (ii) Pr. CIT, approving Authority. Non observation of such serious typographical error led to the conclusion that

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

bogus sales or purchases on account of\nrevenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have\nbeen conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to\nbelief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment.\n10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

purchases from bogus entities to suppress the profit of the company and reduce the tax liability during the years 2015-16 to 2020-21. However, no such report which forms the basis for the 'information' on which the assessment Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT was proposed to be reopened had been provided to the Petitioner. In fact, there