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)

bogus purchase bills without having documentary evidence. The department has carried out intensive search operations and no documentary evidence was brought to our notice to support the findings of the lower authorities. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, the findings of the lower authorities in this regard cannot be sustained. The bench noted this bench

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

bogus purchases made by it are genuine. The onus to prove the genuineness of the purchases is on the assessee the same has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Bright Future Gems, (2017) 392 ITR 580: 2016 SCC Online Raj 10766 and Indian Woolen Carpet Factory v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, (2003) 260

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

section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. Finding of ld.AO: - The findings and observations of ld. AO are at page 2 to 23 of the assessment order. In view of the observations and findings the ld. AO alleged that the sales made, amount realized from debtors and advances received from customers, which was utilized to deposit in bank account in demonetized

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchase/ unexplained investment. It is beyond understanding as to why the AO has given so much credence to the VAT return even though it was neither filled by a qualified expert, nor it was examined or verified by any Chartered Accountant, meaning thereby VAT return was not at all worth reliance as against the regularly maintained books of accounts

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

260/- being 20% of total purchases of Rs.1,26,294/- being the payment made in cash to M/s United Iron Traders, Udaipur. The disallowances so made by the AO and being confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be deleted in full. Rs.75

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)

section 69A of the Act. At the same time, since the sales are found to be bogus to that extent, Rs. 6,76,59,000 shall be reduced from the sales shown by the appellant for the year." 7. The Ld. AR of the assessee filed detailed written submissions and Paper Book containing Page 1-396 and Case Laws Paper

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV BAGARIA, JAIPUR

260 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) in IT APPEAL NOS, 810 TO 815 86 922 TO 926 (AHD.) OF 2015 & others - Tula! 11 Appeals ror A Ys 2006-07 & 2008-09 Date of Hearing : 20/10/2016 / Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2016 held as under: 13 Shri Gaurav Bagaria, Jaipur. Section 10(38), read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SIKAR, SIKAR vs. PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL, SIKAR

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2021-22. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 9,60,01,182/- by treating the purchases made by the assessee from Shri Parshottam Agarwal, Jagdamba Enterprises

DATA INFOSYS LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, revenue’s ground no

bogus is nature or has not been incurred for the purposes for business. There is no basis for adhoc disallowances in the eye of law. In the result, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. The assessee’s ground no. 2 is allowed and the Revenue’s ground no. 2 is dismissed. 4. Now coming to ground

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus LTCG and in this list name of the company is appearing at Sr. No. 69. The ld. DR further based on that report submitted that in the script CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD total trade of Rs. 12,73,18,95,395/- have been done and the companies involved in the purchase and sale for making this much transactions

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

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

Bench: Him.

purchases, thus, the facts of the case are entirely distinguishable and thus, this judgment is not applicable in the case of the Assessee in hand. ix. CIT vs Neminath Enterprises [2018] 97 There is no such finding regarding payment taxmann.com 402 through banking channels. The findings alleged are only view of the Assessing officer, which has not been upheld

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

section 68 of the Act merely on presumptions, suspicions and surmises in respect\nof penny stocks; disregarding the direct evidences placed on record and furnished by the\nassessee in the form of brokers contract notes for purchases and sales of the ‘said shares' of M/s.\nShukun Constructions Ltd., copies of the physical share certificates and her D.MAT account\nstatement establishing

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

bogus turnover to the extent of Rs. 7,44,28,261/- is deducted and on balance turnover of Rs. 2,31,58,533/- GP rate of 23.54 % is applied, resulting in trading addition of Rs. 37,28,523/- made in the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 4.4 The assessing officer