INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 44AB of the Act for "commission agent" is mandatory. It has been clarified that commission agents do not have to prepare "Trading Account" and only commission earned on such purchases and sales is to be shown as income earned. Purchases and sales are recorded in the books of accounts for the purpose of maintaining inventory. It is contended

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)

bogus purchases and such purchases need to be added back to the income of the appellant in entirety. Same approach has been adopted in the assessment order under appeal and the no fault can be found in the same. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. 18 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT 6.3 I have carefully considered

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.

27 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT revealed various incriminating documentary evidence were seized. In addition, statements of various persons ( who assist Bhanwarlal Jain in providing bogus purchases through benami concerns to the beneficiaries) were recorded. Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain in his statement accepted to the fact that he was engaged in providing bills and his reply relied upon

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchases, and existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)\nRules, 1963 alongwith a request to admit the same. Legal ground raised is\nreproduced below:-\n“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in\nconfirming the action of ld. AO in re-opening the assessment u/s 148 of the\nAct arbitrarily.\n1.1 That

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are hereby applicable as the books of accounts are not reliable, Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition of Rs. 5,72,667/- (12% of Rs. 7,03,93,153 declared and accepted

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) regarding estimation of profit. The AO followed the order of flagship company of the group M/s Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. wherein gross profit rate of 17% has been applied. After giving detail reasons, it was held by the AO that since the nature of business and modus operandi of the assessee company is similar to that

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

27-01-2025, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [\nhereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ) for the assessment year 2018-19\nraising therein following grounds of appeal.\n\"1.\nNot considering the ground of the assessee that without rejecting the\nbooks of account u/s 145 the addition made by rejecting purchases is bad in Law\nand facts.\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

27,87,133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

27,87,133/- and disallowed 25% of the same, which resulted in addition of Rs. 6,96,783. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29/06/2018 in appeal No. 603/2014-15. The Id. CIT (A) restricted the addition on the issue of non genuineness of purchases from

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27-04- 2022. The reasons for selection of case were as under:- "The information received from ADIT(Inv) Jamshedpur that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. Engaged in providing bogus sales bills ( 3 Durga Prasad Sharma vs. ITO purchases for the beneficiary) A list of beneficiary is provided by the department for the F.Y. 2017-18 relevant

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)

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus / unverifiable purchases can be disallowed and accordingly respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Anuj Varshney & Others, it is held that the trading edition is to be restricted to 15% of purchases shown by the appellant for the year under consideration. Therefore, out of the trading addition

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

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)

27. Ground No 3 raised by the assessee is for the A.Y. 1998-99, A.Y. 1999-2000, A.Y. 2000-01, A.Y. 2001-2002 and A.Y. 2003-04 is regarding sustaining the addition @ 25% of unverifiable purchases. The CIT(A) upheld the purchases made from the following parties as unverifiable and while do so he sustain the addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

27,32,653/- through 25 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta bogus purchases from these companies in this year. Whether the same amount was received back or not, is not important. What is important is that whether the expenses on purchases were genuine or not. If the purchases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

27,32,653/- through 25 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta bogus purchases from these companies in this year. Whether the same amount was received back or not, is not important. What is important is that whether the expenses on purchases were genuine or not. If the purchases