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. 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

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

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

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

MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,CHURU vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D reflected in the return furnished u/s 139 of the income tax act NOR AO determined includes any income referred in the above mentioned sections so our humble submission is that AO imposed normal tax slab because there is no ingredients of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. In our computation of total income

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

purchases all other issues\ndealt with by the Commissioner of Income-tax in the order dated March\n30, 2009, were not a subject matter of the assessment order passed on\nJune 28, 2006, under section 143(3)/147 of the Act. All the other issues\non which the Commissioner of Income-tax is seeking to exercise the\njurisdiction under section

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

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

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

bogus. The Assessing Officer accepted the purchases as genuine but added certain amount on the premise that the assessee's profit from such dealings would have been higher than disclosed. The entire issue was at large before the Appellate Commissioner. It is well known that the Commissioner (Appeals) while hearing the 7 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT assessee

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

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

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded