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

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

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 passed by the Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN No.\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072584754(1) on 27.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.\nIn support of Grounds of Appeal, the Assessee is furnishing herewith Ground wise written\nsubmission, along with supporting documentary evidence(s) and/or documents as specified

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

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

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

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 dated 28.01.2025) “In this ground the appellant asserts that the professional fees were legitimate expenses for land development services. However, the following points rebut this claim: 1. The services rendered were not clearly defined or corroborated with tangible evidences, despite opportunities given by the concerned AO. 2. Notices under Section 133(6) to the recipients were returned undelivered, further

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

6) of the Act in case of one of the purchaser M/s Paras Gems & Jewellery. The assessee has claimed that the letter was issued on a wrong address. The same also not as acceptable since the notice was sent at the address mentioned in PAN so provided by the assessee. Further the notice was issued through ITBA which was also

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

6,00,000/­ as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and confirmed the addition. Section 68 of the Act deals with "unexplained Credit" in the books of the assessee and section 69A of the Act deals with 37 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. "unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article". Both are entirely different. Though the Assessing Officer

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

6,56,44,910 as bogus purchase, without discharging his onus of providing copy of the statements of persons and material relied upon by him The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition of Rs.6

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

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

6. The Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. CIT has observed that it would be just and proper to direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition in respect of the undisclosed income relating to the purchases to 25 per cent of the total purchases. The said decision was confirmed by this court as well. On consideration

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

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

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