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)

bogus purchases without actual supply of goods of Rs.89,03,956/- and thereby the ld. AO made the addition as per provision of section 69C

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)

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C

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.

69C and restricted the addition to 3% of the purchases made from such 11 parties. On further appeal the Hon`ble ITAT after observing that the assessee had declared a GP rate of 7.17% which is reasonable deleted the addition of 3% also as made by ld. CIT (A). This cited case has exactly similar circumstances as that of present

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)

69C and not under section 68 of the Act and to tax the sales proceeds even in all the details are available no efforts were made to verify the source of the cash deposited the assessee has proceduce all the records related to sales but the revenue without verifying that adding the purchase added the proceeds of the sales

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

69C of Rs.1,82,05,040/-holding that the\nassessee has taken only accommodation entry of genuine purchase by alleging\nas bogus purchase/ transactions is bad in law and facts.\n8. Not considering the ground of the assesove that not exercising property\nthe vested powers of Civil Court in the Ld. AO inter alia for compelling the\nproduction of books

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

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

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)

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 relied upon

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)

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 relied upon

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) are invoked in this case and 25 % as cush purchases of Rs. 31,99,996/- from bogus concern which are operated by Shri Rajendra Jain are treated as non genuine and a sum of Rs. 7,99,999/- added back to the total income the assessee, being un explained expenditure u/s. 69C

NRI-BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. PCIT JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 724/Jpr/2024 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nri-Buildtech (India) Private Limited Cuke The Pcit Vs. Main Road Chopanki, Near Power Jaipur-1, Jaipur. House, Vill- Bilahedi, Bhilwadi, Alwar. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaecn3080A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2024

bogus purchases or unexplained purchases), this addition should have been made u/s 69C whereon tax needs to be charged at special rates as per provisions of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

FINESSE JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfinesse Jewels Private Limited, A-467 Jaipur, Vidhyut Nagar, Jaipur, Ajmer Road- 302 021. Pan No.: Aabcf 4438R ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jaipur – 302 021. ..... Respondent

purchases amounting to Rs. 2, 92, 93,288/- and taxing only 25 per cent of these bogus claim goes against the principles of sections 68 and 69C

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 Rs 40 lacs

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

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 take effect from 1st April