SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

40. The same fact is mentioned in assessment order page no. 3 in para 7.1 by the Learned Assessing Officer. The purchases are genuine. The assessee has made payment of above purchases by crossed account payee cheques. All the purchases are fully genuine and the same has been sold by the assessee by paying excise duty and same amount

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3). Ground no. 3 relates to trading addition of Rs. 1,95,137/- by taking the G.P @ 30%. Ground no. 8, 9 and 10 relate to disallowance of unverifiable purchase particularly cash purchase and URD amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- 3.2 The aforesaid issues have come up for consideration in the appeal of the appellant himself

M/S CLARITY GOLD P. LTD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

bogus purchase bills alongwith its sister concerns. The directors of the company were confronted with the enquiries conducted by the Investigation Directorate and details of the same have already discussed by the AO in the assessment order reproduced above. 5.8 During the course of search conducted at the premises of the appellant a number of incriminating documents in the form

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)

40 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO explanation furnished by the assessee were found not acceptable. Having noted so ld. AO noted that assessee has tried to substantiate the cash deposit by way of bogus purchases / sales and mislead the revenue and thereby he rejected the contention of the assessee as per para 8.1 to. 8.7 of his order and thereby

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases as unverifiable and sustain such adhoc additions. The assessee derives support from the following judicial pronouncements to substantiate its submissions: CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC) Held, “In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income

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) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are hereby applicable as the books of accounts are not reliable, Therefore, 20 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) in view of bogus purchases and the admission of the assessee through its Director Sh. K.K.Ameriya in his statement u/s ITA. No. 46,47,363 & 478/JP/2015 5 M/s Gem Mart India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 132(4) that the company was obtained bogus purchase bill. Regarding estimation of profits, the ld. CIT(A) applied

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

purchase made by the assessee alleged to have been considered as bogus and thereby the profit was estimated and confirmed in the hands of the assessee. That claim itself is not considered fully not correct and thereby the profit was added. Thus, we get support of the decision of the apex court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

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

purchase made by the assessee alleged to have been considered as bogus and thereby the profit was estimated and confirmed in the hands of the assessee. That claim itself is not considered fully not correct and thereby the profit was added. Thus, we get support of the decision of the apex court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

section 145 (3) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are hereby applicable as the books of accounts are not reliable, Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply GP rate of 12% on total turnover of Rs. 7,03,93,153/- which results in addition of Rs. 5,72,667/- (12% of Rs. 7,03,93,153 declared and accepted

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

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made

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)

bogus. Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal inter-alia on the ground that all payments were made by the assessee by Account Payee Cheque; that the assessee was in fact a trader; that all purchases made from M/s Raj Impex were found to have been sold and sales were also accepted by the Assessing Officer. When the Revenue carried

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