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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, circle-1, Jaipur. 2 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases

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 non- 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. 18 Alka

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

143(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

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded

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)

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 DCIT vs. Sunder

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

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

143(2) and u/s 142(1) to verify the\naforesaid purchases. In compliance the Assessee submitted bank statement, sale and purchase,\nbills issued by the company M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited. Further, the company has submitted\ndate wise purchase bills from M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued SCN\nu/s 142(1) vide DIN:ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2022-23/1051119360

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence,\nrendered it as invalid in eyes of law Held, yes Whether, therefore,\nassessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section\n143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras\n19 and 21] [In favour of assessee]\n3. Assessment reopened solely

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence,\nrendered it as invalid in eyes of law Held, yes Whether, therefore,\nassessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section\n143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras\n19 and 21] [In favour of assessee]\n3. Assessment reopened solely

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence,\nrendered it as invalid in eyes of law Held, yes\nWhether, therefore,\nassessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section\n143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras\n19 and 21] [In favour of assessee]\n3. Assessment reopened solely

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence,\nrendered it as invalid in eyes of law Held, yes Whether, therefore,\nassessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section\n143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras\n19 and 21] [In favour of assessee]\n3. Assessment reopened solely

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

143(2) impregnated proceeding with a jurisdictional defect, hence,\nrendered it as invalid in eyes of law - Held, yes - Whether, therefore,\nassessment framed by Assessing Officer in absence of a notice under section\n143(2) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed – Held, yes [Paras\n19 and 21] [In favour of assessee]\n3. Assessment reopened solely

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

purchase invoices, VAT registration numbers, PANs, and payment confirmations. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the consistently declared Gross Profit (GP) rates of the assessee in previous years and concluded that the GP rate declared for the year under consideration was reasonable.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["143(3)", "147", "145(3)", "148"], "issues": "Whether the addition on account of alleged bogus

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:-

143(3) of the Act and made the addition of ₹ 5,65,304/- i.e. @ 25% on unverifiable purchases of ₹ 22,61,216/-. In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 25% on unverifiable/bogus purchases observing that the assessee is involved in activities of taking accommodation entries in order to reduce the profitability. It is further noted that

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)

143(3) of the Act and made the addition of ₹ 5,65,304/- i.e. @ 25% on unverifiable purchases of ₹ 22,61,216/-. In appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of 25% on unverifiable/bogus purchases observing that the assessee is involved in activities of taking accommodation entries in order to reduce the profitability. It is further noted that

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)

section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur. Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Co. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11476762/- on account of gross profit by applying GP Rate of 6% against

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

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) was completed by making disallowance of bogus purchases debited in P & L account of Rs. 2,63,245/-. 2.2 Although