M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37,792/- u/s 69C by holding the purchases to this extent as bogus which was reduced by ld. CIT(A) to Rs. 5,00,000/- as a disallowance to cover up hidden profits in these purchases. Before us, the AR submitted that the trading results declared were accepted and provisions of section

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

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. Banking channel payments alone cannot establish genuineness when the counter-parties are non-existent. The assessee failed on all three tests under Section 68 — identity, genuineness, creditworthiness. Cash Sales During Demonetization Not Proved The assessee claimed that deposits of ₹44,61,000 represented cash sales. However, the AO and CIT(A) recorded that: There was a 561% rise

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases - It was noted that Assessing Officer was provided with requisite bills, vouchers and addresses of trans acting parties but he did not make any effort to confirm veracity of alleged Bogus or inflated bills - Whether since Assessing Officer made additions to income of assessee on estimate basis without rejecting books of account, said additions were to be deleted - Held

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)

purchases was made remain unexplained. Accordingly, the same is disallowed under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.89,03,956/- is to be treated as bogus

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

37, 47 & 48 EPIP, Jaipur. Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS 4492 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing 14/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

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

37, 47 & 48 EPIP, Jaipur. Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCS 4492 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assesseeby : Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing 14/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh

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)

37. Learned DR for the Revenue has referred to the provisions of section 69C of IT Act and submitted that this is a case where it has not been established by the assessee in the assessment proceedings that the goods said to have been sold by the two entities were actually in their stock, and further that when the assessee

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

37. On conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of law explained in aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring

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

37. On conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of law explained in aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153A) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring

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)

bogus with respect to the each of the parties considered in each of the year is also tabulated here in below : Astt Year Purchases held by AO in original Assessment proceedings as bogus/unverifiable 1998-1999 a) Shree Nath Impex Rs. 2,77,128/- b) From various unregistered dealers Rs. 2,78,552/- 1999-2000 M/s Tirupati Balaji Gems

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

purchases and treating it as unexplained expenditure under section 37(1). 8) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO in which AO was arbitrary and illegal in of Rs 37,44,000.00 disallowing the ITC and treating it as bogus

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), consequential rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, treatment of purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- made by the assessee from M/s. Sun Diam as not verifiable and consequential addition of Rs. 7,99,999/-, being 25% of above mentioned alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/-, and levy of tax thereon. In support

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed