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

57,073/- 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?” 7 M/s Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 2. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 126/2014 “Whether the ITAT order is perverse in deleting

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.

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. As ground no., 1 and 3 are against the same action of the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT (A) and are containing identical facts and submissions and hence both the grounds viz. 1 and 3 are being argued simultaneously. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts

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

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)

57,14,650 (taxed u/s 115BBE) Demand & Penalty: Notices issued u/s 234A/B/C/D and 271AAC. Finding by the Ld. CIT(A): It is respectfully submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is well-reasoned and does not call for any interference. The key findings are summarized as under: Bogus Purchases Established The assessee relied upon alleged purchases from

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

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

purchases and sales and direct expenses of share trading were given by the assessee. Therefore, if the trading loss would have been related to share transactions, it would have been reflected in the trading account part. As trading loss has been claimed in the P&L portion and nature of this loss has not been appraised by the assessee

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

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

bogus purchases of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

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

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This shows the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant. In view of the non-compliance

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 69C of the I. T. Act 1961. Hence, the same is added as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the 1. T. Act 1961. 12 Shri Prem Industries vs. ITO Penalty proceeding u/s. 271AAC(1) of the I. T. Act 1961 is initiated.” Dismissal of appeal by ld. CIT(A) 20. As noticed above, the appeal filed by the assessee

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)

57,063 2001-2002 13,15,817 47,44,200 2003-2004 35,82,887 1,31,02,491 The issue taken up for all these years are on similar contention holding that the purchases made by the assessee are tainted / bogus / unverifiable. The details of the amount considered as tainted or bogus with respect to the each

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 and not in the year of write off made. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has 33 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta not considered the observations of ITAT Kolkata bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. C D Steel

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 and not in the year of write off made. The ld. DR further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has 33 ITA No. 54 & 55/JP/2022 & CO No. 4 & 3/JP/2022 M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Suresh Kumar Gupta not considered the observations of ITAT Kolkata bench in the case of ITO Vs. M/s. C D Steel

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

57,83,670/-. 8. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and vide order dated 06/2/2015, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowances by applying 15% of unverifiable purchases and consequently the addition was restricted to Rs. 7,84,442/-. 9. The revenue filed an appeal against the said order

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

57,83,670/-. 8. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and vide order dated 06/2/2015, the ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the disallowances by applying 15% of unverifiable purchases and consequently the addition was restricted to Rs. 7,84,442/-. 9. The revenue filed an appeal against the said order

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

In the result, appeals for the A

57,60,222/- in the nature of bogus purchases from Impex Gems and Rs. 92,04,996/- from the JEWEL DIAM. The concern indulges in providing accommodation entries in lieu of cash obtained from the beneficiaries and not doing any genuine business activity as divulged during the course of search and seizure proceedings in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain, Mumbai