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)

70) operated and managed by Bhanwarlal Jain and his son. A search revealed various incriminating documentary evidences were seized. In addition, statement of various persons (who assist Bhanwarlal Jain in providing bogus purchases through benami concern to the beneficiaries) were recorded. All the above clearly established the modus operandi employed by Bhanwarlal Jain, in his operation accommodation entries pertaining

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)

bogus. That on the contrary the ld. Assessing officer completely ignore the confirmation of the parties, payment made through account payee cheque, purchase bills. 7. That it is pertinent to highlight that NO action whatsoever was undertaken by the VAT department against the assessee appellant and the sales made by the assessee has been accepted. The assessee appellant was registered

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70,266/-. 6.1. In the written submissions filed before me, the appellant stated that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purpose and also tried to explain the defects as pointed out by the AO. It was contended that the AO has not pointed out any specific defect while making the disallowance. It was pointed out that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

bogus purchases ignoring the fact that assessee was involved in taking the accommodation entry from Rajendra Jain and Banwari Lal Jain Group. ‘’3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the deduction u/s 10AA/10A of the Act ignoring the fact that provisions of Section

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

70,375/- 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the addition by Rs. 63,53,428/- (15% of Rs. 4,23,56,186/-) 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

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

bogus purchase.\nB. State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122) The same is\nappearing in the paper book page no. 49-64. Your honour can verify that this\ncase is entirely on different circumstances. Hence not applicable in the case of\nthe assessee.\nC.\nShyamlal Biri Merchant

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 parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

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

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

section 145(3) relating to the AY 2004-05 on account of purchases made from such bogus concerns and gross profit rate of 17.5% was applied on declared turn over of Rs.8,46,70

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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)

bogus purchase, there is a judgment of this Co-ordinate Bench and looking to the same set of facts and circumstances and ratio of decisions taken by the Co-ordinate Bench may please be considered and accordingly ground Nos. 3 & 4 be decided. In addition the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which

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

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

bogus purchase bill. 5 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,66,336/- made by disallowing 15% of the total expenses found recorded in the books of accounts named “Jadavji”maintained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

section 68 of the Act. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued on 17.12.2019 stating that the on verification propose randomly telephonic calls were and mostly debtors not accepted or not remember about any purchase as discussed and tabulated at page 8 of assessment order ( see g) of para 6 above). The ld. AO also informed that notice

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

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

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

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during

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

In the result, appeals for the A

bogus. It is pertinent to mention that the purchases were made by the assessee when the assessee was having its only show room at M.I. Road, Jaipur whereas the survey was conducted at the show room at Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Subsequently the assessee has filed this record of inventory register showing the entries of the alleged purchases. Moreover, during