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

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

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

56, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from other\nsources - Chargeable as (Reassessment) - Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract and sub-contract income On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add\ninterest income shown in books as other income - Subsequently, audit objections were\nraised by audit party Invoking section 147/148, Assessing Officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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 purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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.

2 Through this ground, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs. 8,77,442/- being 25 percent of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.35,09,770/- made from 3 parties alleged to be controlled by Bhanwar Lal Jain group of Mumbai. In the appellant's case, as per information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, a search and seizure action under section

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

bogus entries of name lenders. (iii) If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful or lack credit- worthiness then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act. 6.1.4. The assessment

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus, he has to assess the shareholders but cannot assess the same as the issuing company's unexplained cash credit. 3. Against the above mentioned additions, contention of the appellant is that share premium exceeding fair market value is first time by way brought to tax on statute book of insertion of section 56(2)(viib

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

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

bogus. Therefore, he admitted the above amount of Rs. 16,50,00,000/- as undisclosed income of relevant assessment year and offered the same for taxation. Apart from above Rs. 16,50,00,000/- Sh. Ajay Kumar Bakliwal had received around Rs. 2,00,00,000/- from Shri Ram Kishan Verma and the same was shown by him as unsecured

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)

bogus with respect to the each of the parties considered in each of the year is also tabulated here in below : Astt Year Purchases held by AO in original Assessment proceedings as bogus/unverifiable 1998-1999 a) Shree Nath Impex Rs. 2,77,128/- b) From various unregistered dealers Rs. 2,78,552/- 1999-2000 M/s Tirupati Balaji Gems Rs. 2

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

56,858/- made by the AO without appreciating the facts given in special audit report which has also been held valid. 2. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance from Rs.6,83,29,329/- to Rs.3,35,092/- made U/s 40A(3) of the Act without appreciating

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

56,689.00 1,78,92,739.00 PB-I [46- PB-I [58-73] 57] 21.03.2016 17.12.2018 4 2013-2014 20,48,030.00 8,14,33,841.00 8,14,33,841.00 6,17,64,673.00 2,52,62,800.00 2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 raised by it. 5. Since I have already granted substantial relief on the issue of bogus purchases, the ground no. 3 becomes infructuous. 6. Ground No. 4 & 5 relates to the disallowances of Rs. 31,272/-, Rs. 8,453/- and Rs. 30,541/- out of expenses claimed at Rs. 1,56

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

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

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

56,420/- which includes surrendered income of Rs. 3,85,39,399/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration

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