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

Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor of the assessee, after taking note of the business of assessee i.e. commission agent [PB 87-88] dealing in diamonds and after making detailed study of books of accounts, monthly stock summary [85-86], purchases [PB 81-82], sales [PB 83-84], bank statements

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

bogus purchase. (v) "The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 4. Assessee in ITA no. 122/JPR/2022 for the year under consideration has raised following grounds of appeal: “1The Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11476762/- on account of gross profit by apply

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus LTCG and in our case the information related to the purchases which has already been accepted in the assessment completed u/s 143(3). A. Varshit& Co. Addition was made u/s In our case, reassessment proceedings Mumbai ITAT 143(3) for unverifiable were initiated after completion of purchases by applying NP assessment u/s 143(3) by invoking section

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.

143(1) on the returned income. Thereafter on receipt of information about purchase of goods from certain concerns alleged to be belonging to Bhanwar Lal Jain group an opinion was formed that these purchases were accommodation entries only and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.03.2017. The ld. AO received the information that the appellant had purchased goods worth

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus concerns of Bhanwar Lal Jain & Group.” Thus it is clear that the reopening of the assessment is based on the information received and to assess the income in respect of the purchases made by the assessee which was examined by the AO during the original 21 M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota. scrutiny assessment under section 143

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

143(3)/153(b) is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed. 2 M/s Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income

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

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." ITA Nos. 1057 to 1062 & 1210/JP/2018. M/s. Kota Dall Mill, Kota. 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman