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

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

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. 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

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-

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

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

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-

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

133(6) were received back from postal authorities of parties mentioned at S.No. (i) & (ii) and reply not received from party mentioned at S.No. (iv). The assessee did not produce books of accounts, documents, day-to- day stock register and vouchers for verification. The payment by cheque does not make the transaction genuine. In view of the above facts & circumstances

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)

133(6) of the IT Act. 3. All the letters have same dated 20.10.2016. 4. None of the letters have been contact number or e-mail addresses. 5. The style of writing, font and contents of the letter are almost identical (except figures). 6. None of the letter has the details of persons who have signed these letters

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 purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes

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.”

133(6) were not complied with and even the Inspector could not locate their business premises. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee”. 1.5 In compliance of direction

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

bogus purchases.\n7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions