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)

80,48,367/-, being 25% of alleged bogus purchases without any basis.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that that assessee Company has filed its e-return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 24.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs.79,20,110/-. The assessee Company derives income from Business or Profession. The case was selected

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)

section 115BBE of the Act. 4. That ld. Assessing officer issued the summon u/s 131 of the Act to the one of the seller of the assessee appellant i.e Shri Ram Babu Sambharia prop. of M/s Parijat International from whom the assessee make a purchase of Rs 10,80,450/- . That Shri Ram Babu Sambharia denied the fact

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

section 145(3) of the I.T Act. It may further be seen that in jewellery 14 M/s Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur unit, nizami unit and partly in Silver Star unit, the assessee is manufacturing gold and silver jewellery but no regular manufacturing records or consumption records are maintained so as to verify the consumption

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.

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases as unverifiable and sustain such adhoc additions. The assessee derives support from the following judicial pronouncements to substantiate its submissions: CIT vs. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 (SC) Held, “In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

section 145(3) regarding estimation of profit. The AO followed the order of flagship company of the group M/s Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. wherein gross profit rate of 17% has been applied. After giving detail reasons, it was held by the AO that since the nature of business and modus operandi of the assessee company is similar to that

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

bogus purchases, made for the sole purpose of deflating its actual profits and the assessee's books are therefore, rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961 on this ground. However, based on the above discussion as well as looking to all possibilities, 25% of the total purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/- are being disallowed, which comes

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchaser, etc has been stated, therefore, the\nquestion that has been raised before us is about the tangible nature of such\ninformation and material in possession of the AO and the nexus thereof with\nformation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. It has been contended\nby the ld AR that the information so referred in the reasons recorded

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchaser, etc has been stated, therefore, the\nquestion that has been raised before us is about the tangible nature of such\ninformation and material in possession of the AO and the nexus thereof with\nformation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. It has been contended\nby the ld AR that the information so referred in the reasons recorded

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchaser, etc has been stated, therefore, the\nquestion that has been raised before us is about the tangible nature of such\ninformation and material in possession of the AO and the nexus thereof with\nformation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. It has been contended\nby the ld AR that the information so referred in the reasons recorded

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

purchaser, etc has been stated, therefore, the\nquestion that has been raised before us is about the tangible nature of such\ninformation and material in possession of the AO and the nexus thereof with\nformation of belief that the income has escaped assessment. It has been contended\nby the ld AR that the information so referred in the reasons recorded

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

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

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

80,40,080/- for the year under consideration. In consequence thereof, addition of Rs. 62,39,484/- was made U/s 54F of the Act. The ld Pr.CIT after scrutinizing the records of the assessment reached to the conclusion that the A.O. while finalizing the assessment order, has not given any thought to the fact that the assessee purchased two flats

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 or not is to be determined by AO after conducting proper inquires. Further, the assessee has pointed out the cases where the purchases were understated and sales were over stated by the Special Auditor. The AO has not made independent findings and rejected the assessee’s contentions on technicalities. The justice always prevails over the technicalities. The AO should

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

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

80,074/-. Now the assessee being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT (A) (passed with reference to penalty) preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that amount of alleged bogus purchase