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

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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.

bogus purchases is wrong and unjustified. The appellant has enclosed copies of its Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the year under consideration for your kind verification (APB 38-39). Ground No. 2 : That the ld. CIT (A) has erred seriously in law and on facts in sustaining the validity of notice issued

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-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

Section 115BBE no deduction is allowable to the assessee as assessee purchased the material from grey market in cash. A.Y. 2012-13- Revenue ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,23,21,845/- u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases ignoring

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

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

36,300/- and an addition of Rs. 16,81,765/- was made in the hands of the assessee company. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the invocation the provisions of section 145(3) in view of bogus purchases

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

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment order

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment order

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

DATA INFOSYS LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, revenue’s ground no

purchase of shares. Since both form a component part of the debt, the requirements of Section 36(2)(i) are fulfilled where a part thereof is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. Before concluding, we again take note of the fact that in paragraph 31 of its impugned decision the Tribunal has left the issue

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

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

36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 55/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Tax Vs. Prop. M/s Nandlal Naresh

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

36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 55/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Tax Vs. Prop. M/s Nandlal Naresh

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

36,99,119/- as against addition of Rs.42,75,990/- made by AO by disallowing 25% of the purchases of Rs.1,71,03,970/- made from Kothari Impex, thereby enhancing the addition by Rs.27,69,475/-. She has further erred in making the addition by applying g.p. rate of 9% of the turnover. She has further erred in making