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

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and no reply was received by the department. (a) That Learned Assessing Officer has mentioned the above reasons for treating the purchase as non genuine or bogus but copy of all such documents and information was not provided to the assessee for rebuttal of the same which has been used against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

133(6) of the Act to the seller party nor independently verified the facts about the genuineness of the said purchases from said parties as well as the impugned purchase transaction. Therefore, ld CIT(A) held that ld. AO did a very shoddy investigation and whole addition was based on mere guess work, conjectures and surmises which has not place

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

133(6) of the Act to the seller party nor independently verified the facts about the genuineness of the said purchases from said parties as well as the impugned purchase transaction. Therefore, ld CIT(A) held that ld. AO did a very shoddy investigation and whole addition was based on mere guess work, conjectures and surmises which has not place

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

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)

133(6) were issued to the following entities: 1. M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 2. M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd. 3. M/s Harsharatna Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. 4. M/s Shareen Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. However, no replies were received from these entities. 2.3 Field Enquiries by Income Tax Inspector Field enquiries revealed that none of the above companies

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 CLARITY GOLD P. LTD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

133(A) conducted in FY 2007-08 by BCTT wing of Investigation Directorate at Jaipur which revealed that the assessee company and its sister concern had obtained bogus purchase bills from various entry providers who provided bogus sales bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. 3. During the course of search, statement of Sh. Khushi Kumar Ameriya

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133/-, being 10% of office maintenance, Staff welfare and Telephone Expenses. Appellant prays that no disallowance can be made for personal use as assessee is a company, thus disallowance confirmed by ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 3. That the appellant craves the right to add, deleted, amend or abandone of any of the grounds of appeal either before

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)

133(6) of the Act issued to the 2 entities and as such, the assessee could secure presence of concerned officers or the representatives of the said two entities, for the purpose of verification of transaction of purchases, but the assessee opted not to take any step in this direction. 32. We enquired from Learned AR for the appellant

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 6

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 6

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 17.12.2019 stating that the on verification propose randomly telephonic calls were and mostly debtors not accepted or not remember about any purchase as discussed and tabulated at page 8 of assessment order ( see g) of para 6 above). The ld. AO also informed that notice u/s. 133

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

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

Purchase\nDarshan Enclave Put\nHarsharatna Finance and\nAmp 133(6) Issued\n142(1) To Assessee\nITR filed assessee requested for reason\nreliance placed on GKN\n143(2) issued\nReasons were provided to\nassessee electronically\n131 Director Harshratna\n131 Director Darshan\nEnclave\n131 Director Shareen Hire\nPurchase\nAssessee filed part reply\nAssessee filed objection

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

133(A) during the F.Y 2007-08 by BCTT Wing of Investigation Directorate at Jaipur which revealed that the assessee company and its sister concerns had obtained bogus purchase bills from various and entry providers who provided tax sales bills ITA. No. 46,47,363 & 478/JP/2015 4 M/s Gem Mart India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur without supplying

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

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

Purchase\n28-29\n9.\n04.09.2019\nDarshan Enclave Put\n30-31\n0.\n06.09.2019\nHarsharatna Finance and\nAmp 133(6) Issued\n32-33\n11\n09.09.2019\n142(1) To Assessee\n34-36\n12.\n13.09.2019\nITR filed assessee requested for reason\nreliance placed on GKN\n37-39\n13\n23.09.2019\n143(2) issued\n40\n14\n26.09.2019\nReasons were provided to\nassessee electronically\n41\nVide ITBA/AST/F/17/2019-