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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

purchased during financial year 2005-06, a perusal of the EMSD account (earnest money and security deposit) in the balance sheets as early as AY 2006-07 it is seen that amounts as big as 13,35,000/- are appearing towards NSCs. The EMSD account in the Balance Sheet for financial year ended 31.03.2009 shows balance

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 40A(3) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 1,01,505/- which as also added as income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated

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) while disposing the ground of the assessee The Benches of the Tribunal are also taking a consistent view that where certain purchases remained unverifiable then the addition should be made on the basis of past history and taking into consideration the current events of the case. Taking into consideration the application of GP rate, the Tribunal

AMIT BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

purchases and expenses. He invoked the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT-II Vs. Hindustan Equipment P. Ltd. (supra) and for the fact that the initial addition of Assessing Officer holding bogus

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payment in cash beyond the prescribed threshold, the additions so made by the AO are hereby confirmed. 30. Regarding other expenses namely excessive/ bogus expenses amounting to Rs 2,63,189, unrecorded marble and granite purchase

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

bogus concern which was operated by Shri Rajendra Jain without any physical deliveries and such purchases amounting to Rs 7,54,587/- were treated as non genuine and 25% of such purchases were brought to tax as unexplained expenditure besides addition of Rs. 15,092/-, being 2% of Rs. 7,54,587/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining

SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

purchase of the property is a capital investment and not for trading asset and urged that the provisions of 6 Shri Sunil Kumar Tiwari. section 40A(3) are not applicable. The ld. Counsel submitted that provisions of section 40A(3) were brought on statute for stopping bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

40A(3) of the Act besides 1% of the total freight expenses amounting to Rs. 11,01,622/- were also disallowed. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld CIT(A), besides giving finding on merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, held that in view of various discrepancies

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

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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

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

40A(3) of cash payment without\nappreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to establish the fact\nthat these transactions were covered under clause(g) of rule 6DD of the\nIncome Tax Act.\n4 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the\nground of appeal during the course of appellant proceeding.”\nFirst, we take

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3), however, on purchases made trading addition of Rs. 4,39,437, being 25% of alleged unverified purchases [Compilation Page 1-8]. Ld. AO could not prove to the hilt; the fact of income being concealed by the assessee firmby way of such alleged unverifiable purchases. 1.5. All the requisite evidences, as referred to in Para 1.2 above, for substantiating

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus or ingenuine, then the disallowance of the expenditure under s. 40A(2)(b) is not warranted in the absence of a definite finding that the payment made by the assessee is excessive or unreasonable in comparison to the fair market rent. In the case of MotilalLaxmichandSanghavi vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has considered