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)

260A read with section 153A of the Act not u/s 144. In case if the Assessing Officer was unsatisfied about correctness and completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where proper method of accounting is not following regularly or where accounting standards notified by Central Government are not following by the assessee, then only section 145(3) requires that

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

sections": [ "153A", "145(3)", "144", "153D", "80HHC", "260A", "139", "143(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases

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

260A" ], "issues": "Whether the assessment orders and the additions made therein are valid, particularly concerning the genuineness of purchases and compliance with procedural requirements like Section 153D, and whether the GP rate declared by the assessee is sufficient to counter allegations of bogus

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

260A read with section 153A\nof the Act not u/s 144. In case if the Assessing Officer was unsatisfied\nabout correctness and completeness of the accounts of the assessee or\nwhere proper method of accounting is not following regularly or where\naccounting standards notified by Central Government are not following by\nthe assessee, then only section 145(3) requires that

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

260A read with section 153A\nof the Act not u/s 144. In case if the Assessing Officer was unsatisfied\nabout correctness and completeness of the accounts of the assessee or\nwhere proper method of accounting is not following regularly or where\naccounting standards notified by Central Government are not following by\nthe assessee, then only section 145(3) requires that

RAVI HALDIA,C/O HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

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

section 260A (Set-Aside) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. Ravi Haldia vs. DCIT 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties

RAVI HALDIA,HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

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

section 260A (Set-Aside) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. Ravi Haldia vs. DCIT 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases and findings of the ld CIT(A) were upheld. 3. It was further submitted that during the present proceedings in response to notice U/s 142(1), the assessee has furnished the necessary documents in terms of purchase bills, sales tax register number, PAN Number, confirmations, complete address and bank statement of the sellers as well as the assessee

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-note was declared by the Hon’ble Prime Minister at 8 PM on 8-11-2016 and after this announcement the persons reached the jewellery shop to buy jewellery in exchange of notes. Thus all such scenario indicates that the assessee had duly substantiated its claim

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus without giving any example or evidence in a very lightly manner when purchases were made through valid Bills and there payments have been made through account payee cheque up to that date. 11.3 As the assessee maintaining Purchase /sales and other documents in this year the Deepawali was on 30.10.2016, Annkut on 31.10.2016 and on 01.11.2016 there was Bhaiya

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

bogus accommodation entries, since assessee was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine persons whose statements were recorded during investigation, impugned additions made on basis of such investigation which was not privy to assessee were to be deleted[2022] 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC)/[2022] 289 Taxman 625 (SC)[0.... 9 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT INCOME TAX SLP dismissed

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase, stock register, ledger, bank accounts, bills, vouchers and other documents. And the ld. AO has not rejected all these or not invoked provision of section 145(3), otherwise she could have invoked the same. Thus cold and hot breath cannot blow together. 15. Addition made without bringing any cogent material on record; Simultaneously Ld. AO could not bring

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sub contract from DRAIPL is baseless and incorrect as DRAIPL has also confirmed that sub-contract payments were made to the Appellant in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act (PB 84). • Addition of Rs 42,00,40,000 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sub contract from DRAIPL is baseless and incorrect as DRAIPL has also confirmed that sub-contract payments were made to the Appellant in response to notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act (PB 84). • Addition of Rs 42,00,40,000 has resulted in double addition as the Appellant has already included the said income