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.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus purchase of Rs.1,82,05,040/-. The assessee failed to\ngive a reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O. completed the\nassessment and passed order u/s.147/144B of the Income-tax Act dated\n29.03.2023 Assessing total Income at Rs.2,15,71,990/-\n5.2 It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the\nappellate

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

250 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Such order passed by Ld.CIT(A) was received by the appellant on 22.03.2019 , thus the appeal against the said order was supposed to have been filed by 20.05.2019, however, the appeal got delayed by l6 days, for the reasons as explained below: 1. That, the impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A)-Alwarwas

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

250 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Such order passed by Ld.CIT(A) was received by the appellant on 22.03.2019 , thus the appeal against the said order was supposed to have been filed by 20.05.2019, however, the appeal got delayed by l6 days, for the reasons as explained below: 1. That, the impugned appellate order of Ld. CIT(A)-Alwarwas

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus purchases was justified 5. 178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 6. 186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd 8. 250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 ITR 575 (Del) referred) PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani (Bombay High Court) ITA No. 1543 of 2017 S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the consumption of the raw materials

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)

250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs. 14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources and (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through undisclosed cash/undisclosed source. 4 The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all or any grounds of appeal on or before

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)

250 taxmann 16 having dismissed the SLP filed by the Department this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. d. That the learned A.O. failed to appreciate that section 43B of the IT Act has a non-obstante clause and accordingly it has precedence over the provisions of section

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, the Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Gujarat has decided issue in favour of the revenue. The Ld CIT (A)\nhad also put the para 6 of the aforesaid order, where-in, the entire purchases\nshown on the basis of fictitious invoices debited in the trading account is\ndisallowed by the court.\nIt is ample clear that the aforesaid

FINESSE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2, 92, 93,288/- represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

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

250/- received by the appellant from its customers was also not found verifiable by the AO in absence of complete details. Accordingly, I find that the AO is justified in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. It is also observed that the AO has applied Net Profit

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus purchases and making it as unexplained expenditure under section 37(1) and adding the same as income 9) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO passed without following the procedure laid down in the act 10) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in concluding

MERTA OIL MILLS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250/-. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 3. Now the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT by taking following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the validity of the order passed

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account." 7.1 On the other hand, alternatively even assuming for a moment that the subjected purchases of Rs.39,04,150/- was not genuine and the same is reduced from the purchases, the NP would go up from 4.64% to 13.05% which is beyond imagination

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

SMT ANJU LASHKERY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250/- by raising GP rate from 12.14% to 15.42% and all the deficiency in the books of accounts as alleged in respect of the issue of bogus purchases have been duly take care of by such an addition as held by the ld. CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal in the first round. It was submitted that

SHRI RAJIV BOTHRA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, NCRB, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 557/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Rajiv Bothra, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. B-252, Janta Colony, Ward 5(2), Jaipur. Ncrb, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aazpr 2080 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Written Submissions Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 19/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred At Law As Well As On Facts In Invoking Provisions Of Section 145 For Confirming The Addition Made When The Assessing Officer Had Made The Trading Additions Without Invoking Provisions Of Section 145. 2. That The Ld. A.O. Had Erred At Law As Well As On Facts In Arbitrarily Treating Purchases Made From Maximus Gems, Surya Diam & Navkar India Of Rs. 71,32,000/-, Rs. 10,09,250/- & Rs. 9,01,600/- Respectively In Total Of Rs. 90,42,850/- Are Non-Verifiable Purchases & The Ld. Cit(A) Also Erred In Confirming That The Purchases Made From These Parties Are Non-Verifiable.

Section 145. 2. That the ld. A.O. had erred at law as well as on facts in arbitrarily treating purchases made from Maximus Gems, Surya Diam and Navkar India of Rs. 71,32,000/-, Rs. 10,09,250/- and Rs. 9,01,600/- respectively in total of Rs. 90,42,850/- are non-verifiable purchases