DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus purchase bill. 5 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,66,336/- made by disallowing 15% of the total expenses found recorded in the books of accounts named “Jadavji”maintained

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

270 to 272 & 276, Johari Bazar, Vs. Income Tax, Jaipur-302003. Central Circle-2, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCM 1827 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus and unverifiable. The assessee is controverting the same right from the beginning and therefore the matter went up to the tribunal. The complete details of these purchases along with other details are on record before the AO and also mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). The AO ignored these evidences and simply applied rate of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income of the appellant. The appellant is a trader and not a manufacturer of the oil in which the appellant is dealing. The books of accounts of the appellant have been rejected in the assessment order. During the survey proceedings the appellant has already offered an additional income of Rs.1

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

bogus purchases/enhancement of GP rate and the addition was made in quantum proceedings cannot be made basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Copy of High Court order is enclosed herewith. In other case of Kamlesh Dangayach vs. ACIT Jaipur in ITA no. 18/JPR/2012 it has been held that where addition has been

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

270 shares of Dhanlabh Merchandise Ltd. through broker in the FY 2010-11; b) Payment for purchase of shares had been made through banking channel; c) Investment so made was reflected in the Balance sheet of the assessee in the earlier year for which "return" had duly been filed; d) The shares so acquired were held in demat account

AMIT BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

bogus purchases and subsequently sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act were completely unjustified. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) has not issued any show cause notice in view of the provisions of Section 251(2) of the Act for invoking Section 40A(3) of the Act. Further there

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded

SHRI HABIB KHAN,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus purchase bills. It is dear that the income for A. Y. 2008- 09 has been under assessed to the extent of Rs. 15,07,653/- being 25% of unverifiable purchases of Rs. 60,30,6101 as per the decision pronounced by the Apex Court in Special leave to Appeal (c) No. 8956/2015 decided on 6.4.2015 Vijay Proteins

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

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

270/- on the basis of some images found from the mobile. 2. Addition of Rs. 27,53,711/- u/s 69C was made on account of unaccounted cash purchases on the basis of some images found from the mobile bearing no. 9413342155, which was found from the residence of the assessee. 3. Addition of Rs. 36,291/- was made on account

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases on account of revenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to belief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment. 10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case

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

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus until there is any material or evidence to prove the contrary. She has further observed that the AO in his remand report has solely relied upon the unexecuted survey u/s 133A of the Act and therefore even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing is considered as a relevant evidence, however in view of the above discussion that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NIRANJAN PATIDAR, NEEMUCH

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

270/- for A.Y. 2016-17, Rs.10,00,000/- for A.Y. 2017-18,\nRs.86,98,250/- for A.Y. 2018-19, Rs.31,00,850/- for A.Y. 2019-20 may not be\nadded to your total income treating as your undisclosed income.”\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, it was explained before ld.AO in the\ncase of Sh. Mahesh Gupta that \"Cash Book

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

270/-, after making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs. 9,45,817/- by treating the long term capital gain [claimed exempt u/s 10(38)] as accommodation entry and thus bogus, and further adding an amount of Rs.18,916/- u/s 69C holding that assessee has paid commission for obtaining such accommodation entry. The relevant para of order

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

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270 (Mumbai - Trib.)[21-01-\n2025]\nSection 69A, read with sections 68 and 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUnexplained Moneys (Bogus commodity trading) - Assessment years 2012-13 and\n2014-15 - Assessee filed return for relevant assessment years and assessments\nwere completed under section 143(3) Later, Assessing Officer received\ninformation from Investigating Wing indicating that assessee had indulged

LAXMIKANT TAK,PANCHSHEEL AJMER vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

purchase bills etc. It was noted that the books of account were not complete. Further on examination of the cash book it was seen that there were discrepancies in the cash book entries. Also it was noted by the A.O that the assessee had not submitted proof of certain expenses incurred on the last day of the financial year

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

bogus. He denied benefit u/s 80HHC of the Act. Further, he made addition of Rs. 70 lacs in the income u/s 68 of the Act. It was held that once the assessee has already included the amount of sale of Rs. 70 lacs in Profit and Loss Account and determined the income on that basis no further addition could