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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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 purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes