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

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 purchases, and non- existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18 Alka

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54 M/s Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. Vs. JCIT (ITAT, Jaipur Bench) Whether the onus to prove the purchases as bogus is on the AO, once the assessee has discharged its burden? – Held Yes Further held that AO failed to bring sufficient material on record to prove the purchases as bogus. Based on above and the judicial pronouncements, it is submitted

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

bogus billing to various genuine entities\nthrough routing of unaccounted income. Further the assessee had\nmade purchases from various shell entities some of the examples\nare M/s Rajiv Commercial Private Limited & M/s Ramdiha\nMercantile Private Limited. Your honour kind attention is invited\nto the fact that the above SCN as purely based on information\nonly, without any independent application

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

bogus purchase bills from\nthe above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat\nname of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen\nJewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to\nRs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant\n5\nITA No. 453/JP/2024\nDCIT

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)

section 148 notice, and to share all the outcomes of the third parties enquirers made by you, information, details, documents and 8 Shri Prem Industries vs. ITO evidences available with you and statements of third parties recorded by you so that we can submit our complete reply and submission at one go, but you have not provided us the same

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

54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta bogus purchases from these companies in this year. Whether the same amount was received back or not, is not important. What is important is that whether the expenses on purchases were genuine or not. If the purchases were not genuine, then the same

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

54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta bogus purchases from these companies in this year. Whether the same amount was received back or not, is not important. What is important is that whether the expenses on purchases were genuine or not. If the purchases were not genuine, then the same

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus but were made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

54 for aforesaid amount of Rs.97,82,780/- and in alternate of sum of Rs.62,82,780/- as claimed by assessee in computation of income and therefore erred in not following provisions of law. Ground No. 4:- Assessee humbly prays that the order dt. 16.3.2020 passed by ld. Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur u/s 263 of Income

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

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

54,350/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act on 22/12/2011 whereby the books of assessee were rejected U/s 145(3) of the Act and a trading addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The ld AR has pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment framed

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

54,350/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act on 22/12/2011 whereby the books of assessee were rejected U/s 145(3) of the Act and a trading addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The ld AR has pointed out that the Assessing Officer in the original assessment framed

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

54 in the A.Y. 2016-17. It is not the case that the assessee has claimed the exemption u/s 54F in the A.Y. 2018-19. Copy of sale deed of flat sold by the assessee on dt.07.04.2015, copy purchase deed of flat purchase from M/s Sana Land and Developers, copy of allotment, copy of cancellation of flat purchase from

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

bogus share capital introduced through Kolkata based companies 5. Disallowance of expenses 5516 5516 0 naming bill premium 6. Disallowance 15% of total 166336 166336 0 expenses of Rs. 11,08,906/- (After reducing Rs. 54,57,098/- already disallowed u/s 40(A)(3), 40(a)(ia) etc.) found recorded in the books of accounts named as “Jadavji” Total Addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1. Finding of ld.AO: - The findings and observations of ld. AO are at page 2 to 23 of the assessment order. In view of the observations and findings the ld. AO alleged that the sales made, amount realized from debtors and advances received from customers, which was utilized to deposit in bank account in demonetized

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus would not amount to non disclosure of the necessary facts by the assessee. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the various decisions as relied upon by the ld. A/R of the assessee, we are of the considered view that when there is no allegation of the AO in the reasons recorded