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 was Rs. 89,03,956/-. During the assessment proceedings conducted under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, multiple

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)

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After search (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee company on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011, declaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

bogus purchases from four companies. The A.O. has not examined the information received by him to verify whether assessee has made any purchases from these parties and whether the same is reflected in the accounts or not. The reasons recorded are vague, all consequent proceeding are also illegal and invalid. The AO mechanically and blindly 7 ITA 1383/JP/2019 & 09/JP/2020_

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

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

bogus sale bills without supplying the goods mentioned in the bills. After\nsearch (20.05.2009) the case of the assesssee was centralized with ACIT,\nCentral Circle-1, Jaipur, who issued notice under Section-153A to the assessee\ncompany on 23.09.2009. In response the return was filed on 28.04.2011,\ndeclaring income of Rs. 17,86,470. Assessment was completed

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

section 147/143(3) dated 17.12.2018, and the merged order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur in an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging

RAVI HALDIA,HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

RAVI HALDIA,C/O HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

89,720/-.\nii.\nThe assessment under Section 143(3) was completed on 02.11.2017, with\nthe income finally assessed at ₹33,62,810/-.\n2. Scrutiny and Reopening Proceedings:\ni.\nThe case was selected for scrutiny under CASS.\nii.\nA notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 28-07-2016 and duly served.\n3. Business Background and Investment in Shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

89,301/-. The income from these investments is exempt under the Act. Accordingly, the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 11 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta of IT. Rules, 1962 are applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, disallowance of Rs. 2,87,229/- out of the claim of interest

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

purchases. DRAIPL was awarded a Project of Two\nlaningLadna-Nimbi Jodha-Degana- Merta City section road in length of\n140 km under NUDP-IV from National Highway Authority of India. The\nconstruction of ROB & Re wall was sub-contracted to the assessee firm\nvide a work order dated 03.02.2015 and power of attorney dated\n01.06.2015. During the year under consideration

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

purchases from these two concerns. iii. AO was well within his jurisprudence to reopen the case of the assessee u/s 148. iv. Appellant never raised these issues before the AO and raising an academic issue like this at appellant stage tantamounts to distracting the department from the real issue. 4. Now we will submit our submission on above observations

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more particularly when no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the department to hold that assessee had introduced his undisclosed income in the garb

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

purchases 30 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Manufacturing 12,43,220.00 12,43,220.00 CIT(A) made no adverse Expenses findings for manufacturing expenses which means he has accepted Expenses Total Debit Side 25,57,89,698.86 25,57,89,698.86 of Trading Account Gross Profit 1,37,53,760.12 -5,39,05,239.88 GP Rate 6.34% -36.10% As per findings

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt.\n4. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)\n[DOD:05.07.2017]\nCash Credits\nCompany Share application money Issuance of shares\nGenuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee\nNon-appearance of such parties before Assessing Officer irrelevant – Deletion

SHRI JAI HIND AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-5(4), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

89,586/- out of Rs. 11,12,645/- In this case of the Learned Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 11,12,645/- on account of alleged bogus purchases @ 25% on total purchase of Rs. 44,50,581/-. After considering the various decision of Gujarat High Court and other the Learned CIT(A) has applied the GP rate