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

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

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

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

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

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

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

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

RAVI HALDIA,C/O HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant 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, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

RAVI HALDIA,HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant 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, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section\n145(3). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of\nthe case. Relief may please be granted by accepting books of accounts.\n\n7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the\naction of the ld. AO, in making addition

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

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 12.01.2018. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB