JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

13,178/- made by ld.AO by invoking provisions of section 145(3) by alleging such purchases as unverifiable. Appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 2.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the vital fact that the entity of whom the purchases has been doubted deserves to be accepted in the light

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.

13(3) of the I.T. Act. First we will deal with the issue of investments/ deposits in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. The 27 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018 & 357/JP/2019_ DCIT(E) Vs M/s Modern School Society details of such deposits are given by the ld. CIT(E) in para 5 of the impugned

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.

13(3) of the I.T. Act. First we will deal with the issue of investments/ deposits in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. The 27 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018 & 357/JP/2019_ DCIT(E) Vs M/s Modern School Society details of such deposits are given by the ld. CIT(E) in para 5 of the impugned

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.

13(3) of the I.T. Act. First we will deal with the issue of investments/ deposits in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act. The 27 ITA 1361 & 1362/JP/2018 & 357/JP/2019_ DCIT(E) Vs M/s Modern School Society details of such deposits are given by the ld. CIT(E) in para 5 of the impugned

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 Rs. 3

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

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 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. 13 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. - Confronting the appellant with the statements of parties recorded during the course

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

bogus expenses and by\nusing the money of trust by taking the various advances. However, it is further cleared\nthat Honble Apex Court in three recent decision namely Ahmedabad developmental\nauthority 143 taxman 278, New Nobel Education 143 taxman 246, and Baba Banda\nBahadur Civil Appeal No. 10511 of 2013, had made remarkable change, where the theory\nof dominant objects

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. The only presumption in such circumstances available is that the assessee might have purchased the goods from the others. 3. Rejection of books of Decided Confirmed the rejection of books of accounts against the accounts, which rejected by assessee applying the provisions of section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on the ground of alleged not verifiable/bogus

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

bogus. The only\npresumption in such circumstances\navailable is that the assessee\nmight have purchased the goods\nfrom the others.\n3.\nRejection of books of\naccounts\nDecided\nagainst the\nassessee\nConfirmed the rejection of books of\naccounts, which rejected by\napplying the provisions of section\n145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961\nsolely on the ground of alleged\nnot verifiable/bogus

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

bogus. The only\npresumption in such circumstances\navailable is that the assessee\nmight have purchased the goods\nfrom the others.\n3.\nRejection of books of\naccounts\nDecided\nagainst the\nassessee\nConfirmed the rejection of books of\naccounts, which rejected by\napplying the provisions of section\n145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961\nsolely on the ground of alleged\nnot verifiable/bogus

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

bogus. The only\npresumption in such circumstances\navailable is that the assessee\nmight have purchased the goods\nfrom the others.\n3. Rejection of books of\naccounts\nDecided\nagainst the\nassessee\nConfirmed the rejection of books of\naccounts, which rejected by\napplying the provisions of section\n145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961\nsolely on the ground of alleged\nnot verifiable/bogus

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

bogus. The only\npresumption in such circumstances\navailable is that the assessee\nmight have purchased the goods\nfrom the others.\n3.\nRejection of books of\naccounts\nDecided\nagainst the\nassessee\nConfirmed the rejection of books of\naccounts, which rejected by\napplying the provisions of section\n145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961\nsolely on the ground of alleged\nnot verifiable/bogus

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, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition of Rs. 5,72,667/- (12% of Rs. 7,03,93,153 declared and accepted

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 purchases, and existing 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 - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed non- 13

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

13 Late Shri Jitendra Nagar through L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran. 10. As per the provisions of Section 151(ii) under the new procedural regime, for assessment years where the notice under Section 148 is issued after more than three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanction must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

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

3) or re-assessment proceedings. It is further submitted\nthat provisions of Section 68 are not applicable on the sale transactions\nrecorded in the books of accounts as sales are already part of the income\nwhich is already credited in P&L account. Hence, there is no occasion to\nconsider the same as income of the assessee by invoking