SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

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

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

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

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

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

145(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

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

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

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

section 145(3) of the Act to estimate the income of the assessee.\nUnder these circumstances, we while setting aside the adverse finding of the\nlower authorities against the genuineness of the claimed purchases and exports\ndirect the A.O. To delete the addition of Rs. 3,56,250/- sustained by the Ld. CIT\n(A). The grounds of the appeal

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

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-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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