JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 145(3) by alleging certain purchases as unverifiable, addition to the tune of Rs. 18,53,295/- was made being 25% of such alleged unverifiable purchases (copy of Assessment order at APB 60-73). In first appeal the same was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 18,53,295/- made

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, A person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books

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 M/s Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant Exports (Prop. Shri Sachin Pareek

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per facts of the case, dates of the notices issued and the decision in the case of Kachrulal Jitendra Kuma [2025 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT RAIPUR] we find that the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Evidently, under the facts and circumstances of the present case

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

purchase and sale of real\nestate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take\n25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than\nmaking addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is\nsustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchaser also was unearthed and exact amount of income escaped from assessment was supported by ample evidence- Whether therefore, no ground could be taken that other material which were already available with Department could not be relied on in proceedings- Held, yes [Paras 13, 21 and 22] [In favour of revenue]" (X) The ld AR has placed reliance

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

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list\nsupplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop.\nM/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to\nRs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant Exports (Prop.\nShri Sachin Pareek

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

purchased by M/s Udai Buildhome\nPrivate Limited on 06.11.2012, (iii) it was agreed upon to pay the remaining\namount till 30.11.2012, (iv) registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012\nThe assessing authority has also noted in the satisfaction note that M/s Udai\nBuildhome Private Limited has executed a sale agreement with the sellers for sale\nof their immovable property situated at Village

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the finding recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13, the fact of seizure of possession letter is mentioned. The Respondent AO simply mentioned that what was shared by the DDIT

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus, he could not have merely on basis of assessee's offer to be taxed on estimate basis, concluded that assessee had provided inaccurate particulars in its return - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned penalty order - Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee]…” 1.15. Lower Authorities have not brought on record anything to prove

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

purchase and sale of real estate and flats, it was held that the direction of the Tribunal to the AO to take 25% of the sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than making addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash is sustainable. In such cases, not the entire receipt but only the profit

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

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.

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

purchased by M/s Udai Buildhome Private Limited on 06.11.2012, (iii) it was agreed upon to pay the remaining amount till 30.11.2012, (iv) registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012 The assessing authority has also noted in the satisfaction note that M/s Udai Buildhome Private Limited has executed a sale agreement with the sellers for sale of their immovable property situated at Village

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

purchased by M/s Udai Buildhome Private Limited on 06.11.2012, (iii) it was agreed upon to pay the remaining amount till 30.11.2012, (iv) registered sale deed dated 29.11.2012 The assessing authority has also noted in the satisfaction note that M/s Udai Buildhome Private Limited has executed a sale agreement with the sellers for sale of their immovable property situated at Village

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which