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 260A (set aside) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT “I That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in sustaining addition u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act made by the AO at Rs. 13,00,000/- in the total income

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

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

bogus sale of TMT Bars to the said M/s Mamta\nTrading Company and accordingly the amount of credit is unexplained\nand ld. AO has rightly added the same. It was requested by ld. DR that\norder of ld. CIT(A) may be reversed and order of AO may be restored.\n7.\nPer contra, the ld. AR of assessee has filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, A person other

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Section 69C of the Act. Your honour,\nAssessing Officer was required to bring on record any material/details to controvert the\nclaim of the Assessee and/or to challenge the veracity of the documents filed by the\nAssessee. The Revenue has failed to do so. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 8 wherein the\nld. AO confirmed that M/s IMPEX FERRO

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)

bogus purchase. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Application contending that our High Court in that case while estimating the profit also held that in para 6 that “in our consider opinion, taking into account, the industry which is running the business, the addition which have been made on the Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. basis of GP which has been

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), 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 as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

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)

section 133(6) of IT Act, none of the two entities-sellers respond thereto. (iii) When the two entities did not respond to the notices, and this fact was brought to the notice of the assessee, it did not take any step to secure presence of officers or concerned officials of the said two entities, before the Assessing Officer with

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 purchase bills or inflated export profit or export profit of the assessee is not genuine. He submitted that return of income filed by the assessee as per provision of section u/s 139

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

139(1)", "143(2)", "260A" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment orders and the additions made therein are valid, particularly concerning the genuineness of purchases and compliance with procedural requirements like Section 153D, and whether the GP rate declared by the assessee is sufficient to counter allegations of bogus

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139(1). The second\naspect of the reasons that the assessee has made bogus purchases is also not\nbased

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

sections": [ "153A", "145(3)", "144", "153D", "80HHC", "260A", "139", "143(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase, there is a judgment of this Co-ordinate Bench and looking to the same set of facts and circumstances and ratio of decisions taken by the Co-ordinate Bench may please be considered and accordingly ground Nos. 3 & 4 be decided. In addition the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which

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

bogus purchases. The assessee contested the AO's rejection of books of accounts and the subsequent additions.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the AO could not establish the genuineness of the purchases solely on suspicion without documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that previous litigation in the case and related cases had established the genuineness of suppliers. Furthermore, the assessee

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

bogus bills during the\ncourse of search operation on this person, (iii) holding that the purchases\nof Rs. 1,86,209/-, made from above named concerns, is unverifiable and\nunder invoiced to show more profit to claim the deduction u/s 80HHC, (iv)\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,86,209/- being 25% of purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

139, section\n147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the\nAssessing Officer is satisfied that,—\n\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or\nrequisitioned, belongs to; or\n\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or\npertain to, or any information contained therein, relates

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Section 145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 2 Shri Anil Kumar Garg vs. ITO 90,785/- by unlawfully declaring the purchases of Rs. 3,63,139/- as bogus

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus or untrue. It is further evident that there was neither any detection nor any information in the possession of the Revenue which might lead to a conclusion that there was a detection by the Revenue of concealment. Accordingly, the question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. The Appeal is dismissed.....” Though