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)

36 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO 9. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the revenue has not doubted the value added records and when the purchases are doubted the addition canbe made in that section 69C and not under section 68 of the Act and to tax the sales proceeds even in all the details

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) is invoked in this case. In view of the above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex, M/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s KriyaImpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above paras are bogus and treated as accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made of 25% of the above

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

section 145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of\nthe above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex,\nM/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s Kriyalmpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above\nparas are bogus and treated as accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition made\nof 25% of the above

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)

section 145(3) are invoked in this case and 25 % as cush purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- from bogus concern which are operated by Shri Rajendra Jain are treated as non genuine and a sum of Rs. 7,99,999/- added back to the total income the assessee, being un explained expenditure

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)

36 14. 14.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1079 6,03,814 678 - 37 and 38 15. 17.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1212 6,22,349 773 T20171000226274 39 to 42 Also weight slip 16. 23.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1294 6,56,906 860 - 43 and 44 17. 26.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1337 6,67,060 952 T20171000305405 47 to 48 Also weight slip Total purchases including GST @ 18% 1,05,06.669* * Purchase price without

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

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)

36. Learned AR has also contended that mustard seed purchased from the entities was used for production of finished goods i.e. mustard oil/cake and sale of finished goods, and further that the department having accepted the sales, there is no question of doubting the purchases. 37. Learned DR for the Revenue has referred to the provisions of section

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

36,608/-. 3. Since the department and the assessee felt aggrieved by the above said order passed by ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed ITA No. 1290/JP/2008 whereas the assessee filed ITA No. 1325/JP/2008, before this Appellate Tribunal. Vide judgment dated 09.09.2009 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and dismissed the appeal filed by the department. In the given

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

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchasing land, on which project had to be developed. 2.8 Hon’ble ITAT accepted the legal position that interest expenditure was otherwise allowable under section 36(1)(iii) having been incurred for the purpose of business, however it was of the view that the treatment has also to be in consonance with the method of accounting followed by the assessee

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

36,74,203/- Total 72,78,133/- 7. It was submitted that in course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dt.26-09-2016 filed the copies of the bills as well as confirmations of the parties. Thereafter vide letter dated 22.11.2016, assessee filed the details linking the purchases with the sales made by him and the profit earned on these purchases

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

36-37 [PBI] AO: 28.03.13 U/s 10AA Reply: 38-41 [PBI] Order: 42-43 [PBI] 2011-2012 Claiming Deduction Income Accepted Order: 44-45 [PBI] AO: 07.03.14 U/s 10AA 2011-2012 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s Order: 203-217 [PBII] (Reassessment) 10AA is allowed. AO: 18.12.17 Addition made on account of Bogus Purchase 2012-2013 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s Order

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

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 [

section 36(1) (iii) of the Act as also in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Superme Court in the case of S.A. Builders and that of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court of in the case of Abhisekh Industries. 6. Feeling dissatisfied the finding so recorded in the assessment order, the assessee has carried the matter before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

purchases. DRAIPL was awarded a Project of Two\nlaningLadna-Nimbi Jodha-Degana- Merta City section road in length of\n140 km under NUDP-IV from National Highway Authority of India. The\nconstruction of ROB & Re wall was sub-contracted to the assessee firm\nvide a work order dated 03.02.2015 and power of attorney dated\n01.06.2015. During the year under consideration

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus in view of the following: 1. The assessee had purchased 12500 shares at the rate of Rs. 15/- per share ii. In consideration of purchase of shares, payment was made through account payee cheque, which stood debited in the bank statement of the assessee. Copy of documents evidencing purchase as well as payment of shares was submitted before lower