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

purchase consideration, i.e. Rs.1,70,40,000/- may please be adopted and addition made by Id.AO and confirmed by Id.CIT(A) by invoking provisions of section 56(2)(x) deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above, groundwise submission is made as under: Grounds of Appeal No. 1 to 1.4: In all these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged

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

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.

56,010/- AAFFA6854K Ankita Exports Purchase Rs. 3,95,200/- Total Rs. 35,09,770/- 3.1 Based on the detailed discussion in the assessment order the ld. AO observed that the assessee is engaged in the business of purchase, sale, manufacturing and trading of gold jewellery with diamond and color stones, diamond and gems stones. During the year under consideration

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,361/-, Rs. 42,265/- and Rs. 1,52,707/- under the head office maintenance expenses & office expenses, Staff Welfare expenses and Telephone expenses respectively. From the assessment order, it is seen that for want of proper vouchers and to cover personal element in these expenses and considering the mode of payment in cash, the AO disallowed

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

56,186/-) on the basis of alleged bogus purchases without considering the actual facts of the case.” ITA No. 46/JP/15 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search & seizure operation under section

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

Section 69C of the Act. Your honour,\nAssessing Officer was required to bring on record any material/details to controvert the\nclaim of the Assessee and/or to challenge the veracity of the documents filed by the\nAssessee. The Revenue has failed to do so. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 8 wherein the\nld. AO confirmed that M/s IMPEX FERRO

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

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)

56,250/- being 25% of purchases of Rs. 14,25,000/- (iv) directing to tax the same as income from other sources and (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of doubtful purchases through undisclosed cash/undisclosed source. 4 The appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all or any grounds of appeal on or before

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)

56,906 860 - 43 and 44 17. 26.10.2017 SVMS/2017-18/GST/1337 6,67,060 952 T20171000305405 47 to 48 Also weight slip Total purchases including GST @ 18% 1,05,06.669* * Purchase price without GST is Rs.89,03,956/- i.e. 105,06,669X100 */. 118) The other documentary proofs proving genuine purchases and sales are: S. No. Nature of records P.B. page 1. Purchase

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

bogus / unverifiable purchases can be disallowed and accordingly respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Anuj Varshney & Others, it is held that the trading edition is to be restricted to 15% of purchases shown by the appellant for the year under consideration. Therefore, out of the trading addition

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus gifts. \nThe Hon'ble Finance Minister has made this intention clear by referring to the Gift \ntax Act, 1958, and by adding exception for gift received from relatives on the \noccasion of marriage etc. It is also noteworthy that like gift tax, the basic \nexemption limit has also been prescribed in the section and various exceptions \nprovided in section

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

purchase transactions as shown in the books of accounts as evident from the discussion in pre pages. 31. Therefore, the transactions entered into by the assessee with M/s Kalyani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd and M/s Everlink Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd are alleged as bogus transactions entered into for the purpose of artificially inflating the expenses and thereby reducing the taxable income. These

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

purchase transactions as shown in the books of accounts as evident from the discussion in pre pages. 31. Therefore, the transactions entered into by the assessee with M/s Kalyani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd and M/s Everlink Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd are alleged as bogus transactions entered into for the purpose of artificially inflating the expenses and thereby reducing the taxable income. These

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 145(3), consequential rejection of books of accounts of the assessee, treatment of purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- made by the assessee from M/s. Sun Diam as not verifiable and consequential addition of Rs. 7,99,999/-, being 25% of above mentioned alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/-, and levy of tax thereon. In support

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

bogus purchase, without discharging his onus of providing copy of the statements of persons and material relied upon by him The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the addition of Rs.6,56,44,910’’. 2.1 At the outset of hearing

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Regarding the applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 we may submit as under: - a) As per provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 “Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable

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 or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should