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.

3). However, since the assessee was engaged in corresponding sales, the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,77,442/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases. 5.6 As can be seen, information was available before the AO as given by DGIT (inv) Mumbai, which demonstrated that the suppliers from whom the appellant claimed to have effected purchases are providing

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 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was finalized on 26/12/2018 determining the total income at Rs. 10,84,97,130/-. 3 Goyal Vegoils Ltd. vs. DCIT Subsequent thereto, information was received from the office of the Assistant Director of Income tax (Inv), Rohtak vide his letter F.No.ADIT(Inv)/RTK/2018-19/4373 dated 20-03-2018 regarding the accommodation entries provided

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

bogus expenses and by\nusing the money of trust by taking the various advances. However, it is further cleared\nthat Honble Apex Court in three recent decision namely Ahmedabad developmental\nauthority 143 taxman 278, New Nobel Education 143 taxman 246, and Baba Banda\nBahadur Civil Appeal No. 10511 of 2013, had made remarkable change, where the theory\nof dominant objects

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

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)

section 145(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in (i) holding that proprietor/directors of M/s Shruti Gems & M/s Naman Gems private Limited were dummy proprietor/director and these firms had involved in supplying bogus bills and the finding is solely based

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)

143 (3)/147 completed by the AO at an income of Rs. 43,57,610/- by taking total income at 24,000 as per return filed and by disallowing 25% of said purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- 6 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya amounting to Rs 43,33,606 holding them as non- genuine purchases and added

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

3)", "144", "80HHC", "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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus claim in the return filed. However, the question\nto be considered was whether the assessee could be the beneficiary of its own\nfraud or mistake and whether the Assessing Officer was prevented from correcting\nthe same under section 147. It was to be noted that the Explanation to section\n147(2) specifically provides that the excessive relief granted under

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

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of ₹44,61,000/- made by the Assessing Officer

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

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

section 145(3) of Income Tax Act,\n1961.\n3\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.\nCIT (A) erred in (i) holding that proprietor/directors of M/s Shruti Gems &\nM/s Naman Gems private Limited were dummy proprietor/director and\nthese firms had involved in supplying bogus bills and the finding is solely\nbased

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

143(2) or a\nquestionnaire under section 142(1). In this case, a questionnaire has been\nissued.\n\n24. I am, thus in agreement with the ratio of the decisions cited above and answer\nthis legal issue in favour of the revenue.\"\n\nIn view of the above discussion this issue raised by the appellant is hereby\ndismissed.\n\n5.2

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3)\nread with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3)\nread with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3)\nread with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3)\nread with section 147 and made addition on account of long-term capital gain\narising from sale of agricultural land Assessee contended that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed assessment without issuing\nany notice under section 143(2) -Whether pursuant to return of income filed by\nassessee, Assessing Officer remained under a statutory obligation to issue notice