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

section 145(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in this case of the books of accounts of the assessee was rejected. Considering these facts and reply furnished by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of purchase @ 15% out of total purchase of Sh. Manoj Amarchand Tailor, Bijainagar Vs.ITO, Ward-1, Beawar Rs.22

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69,090/-. Accordingly, after making complete inquiry, the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act was passed on 24.12.2009 making certain addition of Rs. 99,63,801/- on account of unverified purchases and on account of disallowance of expenses of Rs. 2,94,711/-. 3.2 Against that order of the assessment the assessee instituted an appeal before CIT(A), Central

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

69,904/- by adding 15% of alleged unverifiable purchases.” Assessee’s grounds of appeal (ITA No. 478/JP/15) “1. That the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 153A/143(3) is void ab-initio. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer as well as Learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the books

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)

69, which the AO has accepted and taken it as one of the possible views and which the ITAT has accepted holding to be the correct view. 18. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that both the twin conditions, namely, the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

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

69-ITAT Jaipur] dated 30.05.2018 and other judgements and contended that the penalty cannot be levied in the case as the appellant had given all the documentary evidences in support of the purchases and that the addition is on estimate basis which has been gradually and substantially reduced by the ld. CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT. Initially the disallowance

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

69-ITAT Jaipur] dated 30.05.2018 and other judgements and contended that the penalty cannot be levied in the case as the appellant had given all the documentary evidences in support of the purchases and that the addition is on estimate basis which has been gradually and substantially reduced by the ld. CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT. Initially the disallowance

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

69 however has uphold the addition of Rs. 90,87,083/- by applying the GP rate at 6.71% which has been challenged by assessee in present appeal, whereas department has filed appeal in respect of relief allowed by ld.CIT(A). At the outset, it is submitted that, ld.AO disallowed following purchases on the allegation that such purchases are merely entries

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

69 however has uphold the addition of Rs. 90,87,083/- by applying the GP rate at 6.71% which has been challenged by assessee in present appeal, whereas department has filed appeal in respect of relief allowed by ld.CIT(A). At the outset, it is submitted that, ld.AO disallowed following purchases on the allegation that such purchases are merely entries

M/S. SHRI NATH CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

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

69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays your honour to direct the ld. AO to tax the additions, if any sustained by your honour at the normal tax rates without invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE.” 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee heavily

DCIT, CC-2,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

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

69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D), its taxability cannot be determined in terms of section 115BBE. Under the circumstances, the appellant prays your honour to direct the ld. AO to tax the additions, if any sustained by your honour at the normal tax rates without invocation of the provisions of section 115BBE.” 5.1 The ld. AR of the assessee heavily

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

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

section (1).” It is evident from the plain reading of heading of section 115BBE itself that the provisions of this section are applicable only to incomes referred to in section 68, Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT 69, 69A, 69B,69C or 69D, and as submitted supra, the additions made by the ld.AO are on account of alleged undisclosed income

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)

69,638/- being 25% of alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 2,78,552/- (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

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)

bogus. Learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal inter-alia on the ground that all payments were made by the assessee by Account Payee Cheque; that the assessee was in fact a trader; that all purchases made from M/s Raj Impex were found to have been sold and sales were also accepted by the Assessing Officer. When the Revenue carried

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

69,638/- being 25% of alleged\nunverifiable purchases of Rs. 2,78,552/- (iv) directing to tax the same as\nincome from other sources and (iv) holding that assessee paid 25% of\ndoubtful purchases through undisclosed cash/undisclosed source.\n4.\nThe appellant prays for leave to Add, to amend, to delete, or modify the all\nor any grounds of appeal

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

In the result both the appeal of Revenue i

69 to 75. 4 ITA No. 670/JP/2013 & C.O. 53/JP/2013 M/s Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the order of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition by observing as under:- “3.2.1 The assessee has shown purchase of Rs. /- during the year under consideration

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing deemed income under the said sections. This amendment will

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess as applicable). It is also proposed to provide that no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of the Act in computing deemed income under the said sections. This amendment will