INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

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

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

8. The above entity has not provided any information except the ledger account of the assessee in its books of account. The remaining details was not provided and thus AO considered that the assessee has taken an entry of bogus purchase in order to reduce its own tax liability. During the assessment proceedings a show cause notice dated

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.

8,77,442/- being 25 percent of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.35,09,770/- made from 3 parties alleged to be controlled by Bhanwar Lal Jain group of Mumbai. In the appellant's case, as per information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, a search and seizure action under section

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)

section 145(3). Ground no. 3 relates to trading addition of Rs. 1,95,137/- by taking the G.P @ 30%. Ground no. 8, 9 and 10 relate to disallowance of unverifiable purchase particularly cash purchase and URD amounting to Rs. 13,00,000/- 3.2 The aforesaid issues have come up for consideration in the appeal of the appellant himself

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

bogus sales bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. 3. During the course of search, statement of Sh. Khushi Kumar Ameriya, one of the directors of the assessee company was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Further, the statement of Sh. Raghu Dutt Tiwari, the Accountant who was responsible for maintaining and supervising the accounts

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 132(4) of the I.T. Act and relevant part of the statement was extracted in the assessment order. Thus, based on the information received it is observed that the assessee Khandelwal Diamonds Private Limited is one of the beneficiaries and has obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases of Rs. 3,21,93,468/- from the concerns

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 sale and purchases to substantiate her deposits. Based on the above reasons and considering the provision of section 68 of the Act ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 44,61,000/- in the income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. beneficiaries (if any). Further, purchases to the extent of Rs. 34,42,389/- (15 parties) were alleged to be bogus by stating that the concerns from whom such purchases were made by the assessee had made purchases from parties who had accepted to have provided accommodation entries. The Ld. AO on the basis

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

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

8 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs M/s.J.K. International, Jaipur 6.6 Further, I may add that the AO himself has recorded in all the assessment orders that a letter was issued to custom authorities SEZ –II, Sitapura Industrial Area,Jaipur to verify the said purchases. The AO has recorded a finding that SEZ authorities have confirmed that said purchases

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) in view of bogus purchases and the admission of the assessee through its Director Sh. K.K.Ameriya in his statement u/s ITA. No. 46,47,363 & 478/JP/2015 5 M/s Gem Mart India Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur 132(4) that the company was obtained bogus purchase bill. Regarding estimation of profits, the ld. CIT(A) applied

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 billing to various genuine entities\nthrough routing of unaccounted income. Further the assessee had\nmade purchases from various shell entities some of the examples\nare M/s Rajiv Commercial Private Limited & M/s Ramdiha\nMercantile Private Limited. Your honour kind attention is invited\nto the fact that the above SCN as purely based on information\nonly, without any independent application

KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTRUING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

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

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

8. The ld. AO based on the finding and information received alleged that the assessee indulged in bill shopping from bogus concern M/s. Unnati Alloys Private Limited. During enquiries it was found that Moral Alloys Private Limited in an effective period 4 years (FY 2011-12 to 2014-15) has made turnover of Rs. 856 crores in its bank account

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:-

Section 44AB and report in form No.3CB are being submitted from time to time. The assessee during the year declares the G.P.(%) at 10.77%. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3. That assessee was assessed u/s 148 of the Act vide order dated 25.01.2016 wherein the assessee was alleged for indulging in taking the accommodation entry

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)

Section 44AB and report in form No.3CB are being submitted from time to time. The assessee during the year declares the G.P.(%) at 10.77%. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3. That assessee was assessed u/s 148 of the Act vide order dated 25.01.2016 wherein the assessee was alleged for indulging in taking the accommodation entry

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 90,87,083/- (by applying average GP rate of past three years out of addition of Rs. 6,26,90,157/- made

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition to the tune of Rs. 90,87,083/- (by applying average GP rate of past three years out of addition of Rs. 6,26,90,157/- made

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