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 145(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in this case of the books of accounts of the assessee was rejected. Considering these facts and reply furnished by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of purchase @ 15% out of total purchase of Sh. Manoj Amarchand Tailor, Bijainagar Vs.ITO, Ward-1, Beawar Rs.22

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

section 145(3) and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made

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

section 145(3) and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case the entire amount of bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made

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 bills for the alleged purchases, commission would definitely have been paid by the appellant. As the addition has been sustained at Rs. 1,14,76,726/- on account of alleged purchases, accordingly, commission is also confirmed on the above addition @ 6% which is worked out at Rs. 6,88,603/- and is accordingly sustained. In view of the aforesaid

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) were not invoked. The by Hon’ble Supreme assessee company deals into silver Court in case where jewellery studded with precious and semi- purchases are alleged as precious stones and since the major bogus

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)

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller party together with copy

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

section 145(3) in cases of bogus purchases and sales. 13 M/s Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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.

145(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

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. The only presumption in such circumstances available is that the assessee might have purchased the goods from the others. 3. Rejection of books of Decided Confirmed the rejection of books of accounts against the accounts, which rejected by assessee applying the provisions of section 145

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

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)

section 145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of the above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex, M/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s KriyaImpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above paras are bogus

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

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

section 145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of the above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex, M/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s Kriyalmpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above paras are bogus

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) in view of bogus purchases and the admission of the assessee through its Director Sh. K.K.Ameriya in his statement

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus purchase bill. 5 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,66,336/- made by disallowing 15% of the total expenses found recorded in the books of accounts named “Jadavji”maintained

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

purchase the goods in furtherance of the business\nand cannot be issued by any other entity like a direct consumer of the\ngoods (APB 104-111)\n5.\nCopy of day to day stock register maintained by the assessee company\nwherein the outward entry of the goods sold to M/s Mamta Trading Co.\nis duly highlighted (APB 211-281)\n6.\nCopy

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases, and non­existing 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

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

145 the addition made by rejecting purchases is bad in law and facts.\nThe submission in this regard is as under:-\n5\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\n1. Your honour, the Ld. AO has held that purchases amounting to Rs.1,82,05,040/- from\nM/s Impex Ferro Tech Ltd is treated as Bogus