M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (Guj.) Income from undisclosed sources – Purchases made by assessee – Subsequent statements by sellers in sales tax proceedings that they had issued bogus vouchers – No evidence that bogus vouchers had been given to assessee – Assessee’s payments made by cheque – Amounts represented by purchases cannot be assessed as income from undisclosed sources. 26 TW 511 ACIT

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

249 (Guj.)(HC)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 8-9) Purchases made by assessee. Subsequent statements by sellers in Sales Tax proceedings that they had issued bogus vouchers. No evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to assessee. Payments by account payee cheques. Amount represented purchases cannot be disallowed. c) CIT v Hi Lux Automotive

VIJAY KEDIA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1266/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 M/S Vijay Kedia, Cuke A.C.I.T., 1307, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Johari Vs. Central Circle-1, Bazar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabhv 6449 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca)& Shri R.K. Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Jaipur Dated 02/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Wrong, Unjust & Has Erred In Law In Not Accepting Plea Of The Appellant That The Notice Issued By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Is Wrong & Bad In Law Inasmuch As It Did Not Specify In Which Limb Of Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 The Penalty Proceedings Has Been Initiated I.E. Whether For Concealment Of Income Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income.

bogus bills to inflate the purchase cost and to reduce the taxable profit. The explanation offered by the assessee during course of assessment substantiate it explanation with regard to correctness of its books of account. 8. I am, therefore, satisfied that the assessee is found guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to the tune

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

purchases and\nassessee is one of the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction with\nM/s DRAIPL to the extent of Rs.6,46,31,000/- in the relevant assessment year\nand accordingly reached to the satisfaction that income to this extent has escaped\nassessment.\n\nFrom perusal of above, it is crystal clear that information, based on which notice\nu/s

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

249 (Guj) (iv) CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2013) 216 Taxman 171 (Mag.) (Bom.)(HC) Sale to government department-Alleged bogus purchases-Sales not doubted, merely because suppliers not appeared before the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals), purchases cannot be disallowed. (v) Rajesh P Soni V/s ACIT 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd) Where purchases are properly recorded in books

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus and refused the claim made under Section 37 of the Act. We find that the additions made by the AO is not only erroneous but is also contrary to directions of DRP and settled legal position as held in Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia [2017 (10) TMI 729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]; CIT vs. JMD Computers and Communications

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)

249 ITR 0125 (Guj-HC) 1.14. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vatika Construction (P.) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 471 (Delhi), in which it has been held that “…Head Notes - Section 271(1)(c), read with sections 40A(3) and 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

bogus purchase bills from ‘GJ’, since AO had not recorded his own satisfaction and had not made any effort to examine and to discuss material received from Investigation wing, reassessment so made was to be quashed. Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 170 DTR 237 (Del.) (Trib.) AO having formed the belief that assessee’s income has escaped

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 (SC) held that " SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that there was concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee was sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings and in absence of such satisfaction, both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal had correctly ordered to drop penalty

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench) - 64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT (ITAT, Visakhapatnam) - Rajat Shubra Chatterji vs. ACIT in ITA no. 2403/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi) - Prakash Chand Kothari in ITA No. 1190/JP/2019 (ITAT, Jaipur) It is thus submitted that the consequent re-assessment order passed u/s 147 is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Loss to the beneficiaries; by receiving cash and the purchase and sale of share was done to route the unaccounted income into legal money. The financials of the company for the relevant period do not show any substantial change to support by financial fundamentals of the company. Both purchase and sale of the shares are concentrated

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

bogus LTCG. Therefore, the same is assessed in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 5.3.3 In respect of this ground, the appellant in his written submission made the following argument: 59. As stated in brief facts of the case that the Appellant purchased total

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure in appeal prescribed

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure in appeal prescribed

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

249 of I.T. Act; neither the Assessee can stop the further working of that machinery as a matter of right by withdrawing the appeal, or by not pressing the appeal, or by non-prosecution of the appeal; nor the first appellate authority, CIT(A) in this case, can halt this machinery by ignoring either the procedure in appeal prescribed