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)

4. Mr. J.P. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that 25% of Rs. 2.92 crores is undisclosed income as defined under Section 1588(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submitted that the Tribunal erred when on one hand it accepted the purchases to be genuine and then went ahead

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

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

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 billing to various genuine\nentities through routing of unaccounted income during the FY:2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19.\n(Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 4 point 4.1.)\n18\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\n3.\n(Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 4 last para)\na.\nwherein

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or where

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

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

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

250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs.\n14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources\nand (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through\nundisclosed cash/undisclosed source.\n4\nThe appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the\nall or any grounds of appeal on or before

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

250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs.\n14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources\nand (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through\nundisclosed cash/undisclosed source.\n4 The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the\nall or any grounds of appeal on or before

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

250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs.\n14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources\nand (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through\nundisclosed cash/undisclosed source.\n4\nThe appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the\nall or any grounds of appeal on or before

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

250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs.\n14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources\nand (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through\nundisclosed cash/undisclosed source.\n4\nThe appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the\nall or any grounds of appeal on or before

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)

4) read with section 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

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)

4) read with section 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

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)

bogus purchase, there is a judgment of this Co-ordinate Bench and looking to the same set of facts and circumstances and ratio of decisions taken by the Co-ordinate Bench may please be considered and accordingly ground Nos. 3 & 4 be decided. In addition the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which

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

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

4 to 7, it is observed that the Ld. A/R of the appellant has given point wise reply on the various observations made by the AO in respect of invocation of provision of section 145(3) of the Act as also dealt by me in the above paras. However, in view of the fact that the AO has made telephonic

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

250 ofl. T. Act or powers of Commissioner (Appeals) prescribed U/s 251 of I. T Act. CIT(A), the first appellate authority, cannot dismiss assessee's appeal in limine for non- prosecution without deciding the appeal on merits through an order in writing, stating the points of determination in the appeal, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision