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)

2. Century Gems 5,04,350/- Total 74,13,178/- The assessee had filed following documents to substantiate purchases from the above parties:  Detailed Purchase invoices containing complete description of goods sold to the assessee, and their sales-tax nos.(APB 87-88 & 92-103)  Copy of bank statements of the assessee duly reflecting the payments made against such purchases

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

2. Purchases are genuine: - The above chart discloses that the assesse furnished all the documents proving the purchases as genuine. It is submitted that all those ingredients are present which make any purchase genuine. The Learned Assessing Officer has simply treated them bogus on the basis of suspicion, doubt and conjecture. It is established position of law that Suspicion however

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk-fy- ls fdruk

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

e 1961 ds vfHk;kstu izko/kkuksa dh rjQ vkidk /;ku vkdf"kZr djuk pkgrk gw¡ fd xyr c;kuh dh n'kk eas vkids fo:) Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. vfHk;kstu dh dk;Zokgh izkjEHk dh tk ldrh gSA d`i;k ,d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk-fy- ls fdruk

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

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)

e-return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 24.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.79,20,110/-. The assessee Company derives income from Business or Profession. The case was selected for manual scrutiny assessment. The notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 30.09.2015 and served upon the assessee. Due to change of incumbent notice

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.

2) 188 22. GUJARAT [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF 189- 204 Aaspas Multimedia Ltd.v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 1(1) 23 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 (Rajasthan) HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN Ankit 205- Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Bikaner 214 24. [1998] 96 Taxman 366 (Gauhati) High Court of Gauhati Assam

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

e-return on\n03.10.2020 for the A.Y. 2014-15, declaring an income of ₹2,32,88,920/-.\n\n2. During the search proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had taken\nunsecured loans from various entities as listed in the AO`s order. The assessee\nwas required to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these\nunsecured loans. In response

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)

e. Where strictures/adverse comments have been passed and/or cost has been levied against the Department of Revenue, CBDT or their officers, or Where the tax effect is not quantifiable or not involved, such as the case of f. registration of trusts or institutions under sections 10(23C), 12 A/ 12AA/12AB of the Act, order passed

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)

e) Copy of stock register 8.4 Apart from above, assessee has not demanded the cross-examination of Shri Rambabu Samaria whose statements were supplied to the assessee along with show cause notice dated 18.12.2019, which is evident from the remarks in front of 7 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO show cause notice ie. "refer to attachment The assessee's ADCPK0819N_2017_Attachment_100022360763.pdf. objection

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

e) No success or progress was made towards achievement of clearances and sanction for Hostel Development for which the agreement to sale was formulated; (f) Till the time of finalization of this assessment, no further progress had been made towards the object for which advances of Rs. 5,05,00,000/- were made; The ld. AO also noted that

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)

e) M/s Vinayak Overseas. Rs. 2,19,834 2003-04 a) M/s Shruti Gems Rs. 47,87,521/- b) M/s Naman Gems Pvt Ltd Rs. 13,25,792/ c) Real Gems INC Rs.7,15,465/- d) Bright Gems Rs, 2,42,500/- Govindam Export vs. DCIT While making the addition for all these purchases, the ld. AO rejected the books

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

bogus sales and unaccounted income of the assessee.” Whereas assessment has been completed and additions have been made on the following ground “It is clearly evident from the above that the sale claimed are in the round figure of thousand mostly. It is clarified that the rate of the Gold and silver changed on daily basis or couple