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

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

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)

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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:-

Section 271(1)© , the assessee is found guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of amount of Rs.2,67,647/-. For that reason, I am satisfied that ‘’Assessee’’ has committed default u/s 271(1)( c) of theI.T. Act and therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)( c) is imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

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)

bogus purchase was involved and in that case profit estimated @ 25 %. Thus, he supported the addition made by the AO @ 25 % of purchase. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the findings recorded by the AO that how the exact credit and debit transactions recorded in the parties from where these purchases are accounted. He has also drawn

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus purchases on the basis of corroborative information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai is not sustainable and only a trading addition of Rs. 41,23,468/- be made by applying GP rate of 12%?” 2. Without prejudice to the above, whether having upheld the applicability of section 145

SATYA NARAYAN ,BHARATPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1434/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Satya Narayan बनाम Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shiv Charan Lal Satya Vs. Ward -1, Narayan, Navin Mandi Yard, Nadbai, Bharatpur Bharatpur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPPN9055M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh

section 145(3) of the Act the rejection of the book results were merely based on the surmises and conjectures. Based on the reasons of the scrutiny there is no case of the revenue that the assessee has shown the bogus purchase