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 bills of sale are issued to interested parties. 5. Accommodation entries (unsecured loans) are also given to other Interested parties against cash from time to time.” 7. In response to the observations of the Assessing Officer in respect of the above purchase made by the assessee he sought a clarification from the assessee. The AR of the assessee submitted

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

5,26,48,554/-. Since the purchases made from M/s Unnati Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has been held to be an accommodation entry, therefore there is no denying the fact that in the order to obtained the bogus bills for the alleged purchases, commission would definitely have been paid by the appellant. As the addition has been sustained

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

bogus purchases. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 3,39,74,28,174/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

section 11(5) of the Act while passing the impugned order by the ld. CIT(E). It is also not in dispute that the said agreement was consequently cancelled and this amount was received back by the assessee on cancellation of the agreement, therefore, until and unless the agreement dated 27.05.2011 is held as bogus or non-est the payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

section 11(5) of the Act while passing the impugned order by the ld. CIT(E). It is also not in dispute that the said agreement was consequently cancelled and this amount was received back by the assessee on cancellation of the agreement, therefore, until and unless the agreement dated 27.05.2011 is held as bogus or non-est the payment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MODERN SCHOOL SOCIETY, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1361 & 1362/Jp/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 357/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Modern School Society, Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Sector-A, Talwandi, Kota Circle, Jaipur. (Rajasthan) Pan No.: Aaatm 7045 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Sogani (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 04/09/2018 & 12/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 To 2013-14 Respectively.

section 11(5) of the Act while passing the impugned order by the ld. CIT(E). It is also not in dispute that the said agreement was consequently cancelled and this amount was received back by the assessee on cancellation of the agreement, therefore, until and unless the agreement dated 27.05.2011 is held as bogus or non-est the payment

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)

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller party together with copy

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.775 to 778/JP/2024 Uttrakhand Samaj 51/117 Sec 5, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur cuke Vs. The CIT, Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATU 6874 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. K. L. Choudhary, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2024 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@D

bogus activities and thus application for registration was considered liable to be rejected. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB was considered as liable to be rejected. The ld. CIT(E) also clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Income

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus activities and thus application for registration was considered liable to be rejected. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB was considered as liable to be rejected. The ld. CIT(E) also clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Income

UTTRAKHAND SAMAJ,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPURTHE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed, for statistical

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

bogus activities and thus application for registration was considered liable to be rejected. In view of above discussion assessee’s claim of registration section 12AB was considered as liable to be rejected. The ld. CIT(E) also clarified that applicant’s provisional registration under clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub- section (1) of section 12A of the Income

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 132(4) of the I.T. Act and relevant part of the statement was extracted in the assessment order. Thus, based on the information received it is observed that the assessee Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited is one of the beneficiaries and has obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,21,93,468/- from the concerns

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

5,12,77,217/- ignoring admitted facts in the statement of Shri Khushi Kumar Ameriya (Director) u/s 132(4) of the IT Act as well as the evidences gathered during search confirming bogus purchase bills obtained?” 4. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 128/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is perverse in deleting the entire trading addition

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 to the tune of Rs. 35,09,770/- from the following 3 parties during the FY 2011-12: 5 Shri Khandelwal Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Name of the Bill Provider Amount in Rs. Pankaj Exports 15,58,560/- Malhar Exports 15,56,010/- Ankita Exports 3,95,200/- Total Rs. 35,09,770/- 5.4 The AO after

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) were not invoked. The by Hon’ble Supreme assessee company deals into silver Court in case where jewellery studded with precious and semi- purchases are alleged as precious stones and since the major bogus component is silver, the GP rate is ranging between 5

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)

5. That on the basis of the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, the ld. Assessing officer treated the purchase made by the assessee as bogus irrespective of the facts that the entire payment were made by the assessee through account payee cheque on 21.03.2017 and same was debit in the name of M/s Parijat International. 6. That further

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

bogus sale of TMT Bars to the said M/s Mamta\nTrading Company and accordingly the amount of credit is unexplained\nand ld. AO has rightly added the same. It was requested by ld. DR that\norder of ld. CIT(A) may be reversed and order of AO may be restored.\n7.\nPer contra, the ld. AR of assessee has filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued notice under section 148 after issuing notice under section 148A(b) and passing order under section 148 A(d). Notice under section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2022. Copies