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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

2. Purchases are genuine: - The above chart discloses that the assesse furnished all the documents proving the purchases as genuine. It is submitted that all those ingredients are present which make any purchase genuine. The Learned Assessing Officer has simply treated them bogus on the basis of suspicion, doubt and conjecture. It is established position of law that Suspicion however

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

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

50,84,046/- was paid in F. Y. 2014-15 itself. In support of this the assessee filed a letter of booking cum allotment letter dated 14.07.2014. After making all the payment of the said flat booked the purchase deed was executed in May 2019. On the date of registration of the property the stamp duty value noted

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. Mr. Jain has agreed that he imports and delivers the goods without a bill. Whereas the parties who take the bill does not take the goods. Even the ld. AO has accepted the fact the assessee has purchased the goods in cash and taken the bill from the alleged firm of Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain to the extent

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,37,792/- 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 145(3) were not invoked. The Assessing

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)

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 DCIT vs. Sunder

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)

Section 68 of the Act. Before going in to the details of the case, it is pertinent to understand the facts, circumstances and ground realities of demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. On the evening of 08.11.2016 at 8.15 p.m., in a surprise announcement, demonetization of old Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- notes was announced by the Government of India

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)

2,19,834/- AY 2003- a) M/s Shruti Gems Rs. 61,13,313/- 15,28,328/- 2004 47,87,521/- b) M/s Naman Gems Pvt Ltd Rs. 13,25,792/ 28. While dealing with ground no 3 the ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued the assessee has submitted the quantitative details of purchases and sales. The assessee also showed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

section 145(3). Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) acted beyond jurisdiction and perversely allowed relief of Rs. 2,23,42,465/- (2,43,03,809 - 19,61,344); 1.1 Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,23,42,465/- made on account of suppressed sale and unexplained investment in purchase including expenses, without appreciating that the assessee failed

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

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

50,140.00 PB-I [107- PB-I [122-139] 121] 17.12.2018 PB-I [20-35] 6 2015-2016 4,68,02,540.00 3,90,12,873.00 2,71,31,212.00 7,05,65,860.00 1,18,81,660.00 22.02.2019 (154 order

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

bogus purchase bills from the above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat name of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen Jewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant 5 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT

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

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

50,840/- under clause 1(a) of that section despite the fact that manner of earning of undisclosed income was not disclosed by the assessee. 2. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares which has resulted Long Term Capital Gains are duly recorded in the books of account

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of Revenue i

section 145(3) of the Act in the present case. So far as restriction of the application of reduced GP rate on Rs. 26 lacs (i.e. round figure of alleged bogus purchased worth Rs. 25,00,556/-) is concerned, we do not find substance in the argument of the ld. D/R especially when sales declared by the assessee have

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)

2 Purchase from Siddhi Vinayak – proof & supporting documents 1 to 49 3 Ledger a/c of Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Co. Ltd. in books of 50 assessee 4 Bank statement evidencing payments of Sidhi Vinayak & Salt Co. 51 to 59 5 GST quarterly returns-input credit of assessee not doubted by 60 to 64 GST Department Case laws relied upon