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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

25% of bogus purchase. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to charge commission @ 6% on restricted addition only, whereas commission @6% had been charged on bogus purchase disallowed by the AO. (iii) Whether CIT(A) was justified in law in ignoring the fact that

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 and treated as accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made of 25

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.

25 percent of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.35,09,770/- made from 3 parties alleged to be controlled by Bhanwar Lal Jain group of Mumbai. In the appellant's case, as per information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, a search and seizure action under section

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 124(3) and based on the arguments of ld. DR relying on the judgement cited and referred here in above we do not find any merits in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee and thus the Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. As regards the ground no. 1 being the rejection

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 124(3) and based on the arguments of ld. DR relying on the judgement cited and referred here in above we do not find any merits in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee and thus the Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is dismissed. As regards the ground no. 1 being the rejection

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections

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)

purchases indulged in by the group approximate to Rs. 25,000/- crores were detected. The entire bogus nature of the transactions has also been admitted by Bhanwarlal Jain in his statement recorded under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

section 69C is not attracted. The relevant para of he judgement are 10 to 12 and the same are reproduced (mentioned at page 24 of the ld. CIT(A) ‘s order).. Considering all the above, I am of the view that even if 25% of purchases from concerns are treated as bogus

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)

25 % decided by the ld. CIT(A) is correct or not in respect of the bogus purchases made by the assessee. The bench noted that recently the jurisdictional Hon’ble Rajasthan High court while dealing the estimation of gross profit on account of bogus purchase while dealing with the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR vs. M/S CLARITY

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:-

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

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)

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus / unverifiable purchases can be disallowed and accordingly respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Anuj Varshney & Others, it is held that the trading edition is to be restricted to 15% of purchases shown by the appellant for the year under consideration. Therefore, out of the trading addition

M/S CLARITY GOLD P. LTD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

25,51,448/- by applying GP rate of 15% on alleged unaccounted turnover of Rs. 15,03,42,985/- which are only book entries for purchase and not reconciled with stock.” 2. The facts of the case are that assessee company derives income from business of manufacturing of jewellery and trading of gem stones. A search & seizure operation under section

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

25% of the purchases, while observing that said purchases were shown by the assessee in order to inflate expenditure and lower its Gross profit, the assessee debited purchase account with purchase invoices in the garb of two fictitious parties, which were not verifiable. 13. In the course of arguments, we specifically inquired from ld. AR for the appellant

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 145(3) are invoked in this case and 25 % as cush purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- from bogus

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

25% caster oil and derivatives and evidences of unverifiable purchases were found in their premises of the bogus was upheld by invoking suppliers such as their cheque books, the provisions of section

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. That on the contrary the Id. Assessing officer completely ignore the confirmation of the parties, payment made through account payee cheque, purchase bills. 22 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO 7. That it is pertinent to highlight that NO action whatsoever was undertaken by 7. That it is pertinent to highlight that NO action whatsoever was undertaken by 7. That

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:

25% of 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