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

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)

133(6) on 17.12.2019 to the Commercial Tax Department for providing the detail of VAT/Sales Tax Return for AY 2016-17 of the parties from the assessee purchase the goods and on the basis of report submitted by the Commercial Tax Department, the ld. Assessing officer treated the purchase as bogus. That on the contrary the ld. Assessing officer completely

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)

bogus purchases was Rs. 89,03,956/-. During the assessment proceedings conducted under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, multiple statutory notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1), and responses were received from the appellant along with supporting documentation such as ledger accounts, purchase invoices, transport bilty copies, stock registers, bank statements

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)

133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

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:-

133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

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

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)

133(6) of the Act was called from M/s. Unnati Alloys Private Limited to check the veracity of claim of purchase of the assessee. The AO has called for following information; (i) Copy of confirmations of account with M/s. Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Private Limited duly certified in their books for FY 2011-12. (ii) Copy of detailed descriptions

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

bogus bills only against certain commission without actual trade and therefore non mentioning of the name of assessee does not tenable. Accordingly, the AO rejected the books of accounts by applying the provisions of 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

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchased land on behalf of RLHL. 2. During the year appellant procured the professional services in relation to development and acquisition related issues of land from three entities namely Nimbus Industries Limited, M/s Arena Trading (P) Ltd and M/s Hetu Investment & Trading Limited, making payments of Rs. 9,00,000 each, totaling

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus entry providing activity of the Banka Group. Therefore, proposal for remedial action was after the search and it was tangible material based upon which the reopening of was done. The ld. AO after analyzing the information proposal was mover for action u/s. 148 which was got approved as per provision of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur section

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)

bogus and refused the claim made under Section 37 of the Act. We find that the additions made by the AO is not only erroneous but is also contrary to directions of DRP and settled legal position as held in Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia [2017 (10) TMI 729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]; CIT vs. JMD Computers and Communications

VIKAS DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Actual Hearing Of The Case.”

bogus creditors and their subsequent exports and to again verify the genuineness of the creditors , the set aside proceedings were initiated by ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. However, the Ld AO neither examined the documents & evidences filed in support of purchases and their subsequent exports nor made any efforts to locate the creditors and made the same addition

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

133(6) (calling for information) to substantiate the allegation that sales were fabricated or non-genuine. 2.6. Ld. AO simply stated that the assessee did not provide the phone numbers of the person to whom sales were made. Also, that no confirmation was received of the sales having been made. It is submitted that there was no requirement

RAVI HALDIA,C/O HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

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

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

RAVI HALDIA,HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

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

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

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)

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent's unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged