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

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

bogus bills of sale are issued to interested parties. 5. Accommodation entries (unsecured loans) are also given to other Interested parties against cash from time to time.” 7. In response to the observations of the Assessing Officer in respect of the above purchase made by the assessee he sought a clarification from the assessee. The AR of the assessee submitted

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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

9. 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

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

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

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. 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.

purchases are bogus. The onus of proof at all relevant times rests upon the assessee. It is for the assessee to establish by evidence that a particular allowance is justified. The law does not prescribe any quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. It all depends on the facts and circumstances

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)

9. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the revenue has not doubted the value added records and when the purchases are doubted the addition canbe made in that section 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section rate of 12.5% on bogus 145(3) and GP rate was applied. Since the purchases. assessment was already completed u/s 143(3) therefore, the facts of the case are totally distinguishable from the case relied upon by revenue the where no assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and reassessment proceedings were initiated for unverifiable purchases in the order passed

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

9 DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs M/s.J.K. International, Jaipur 2.2.3 After having considered the counsel of both the parties at length, we found that the AO on the basis of statement treated the purchases made by the assessee as bogus and proceeded to make the addition of 25% of such purchases as bogus

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

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:-

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

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)

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

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

purchase by alleging as\nbogus purchase/transactions is bad in law and facts.\nGOA 8: Not considering the ground of the assessee that not exercising properly the\nvested powers of Civil court in the Ld.AO inter alia for compelling the production of\nbooks of account & other documents u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in\nand facts.\nGOA 9

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

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 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT

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

9. Later on, based on certain information stated to have been received during the search operation carried out in the case of Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Jain group, Mumbai by the DIT(Inv.), wherein it was found out that the concerns of the above group were involved in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans and advances, bogus sales, share capital

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

9. Later on, based on certain information stated to have been received during the search operation carried out in the case of Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Jain group, Mumbai by the DIT(Inv.), wherein it was found out that the concerns of the above group were involved in providing accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loans and advances, bogus sales, share capital

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 sale 9 Durga Prasad Sharma vs. ITO invoices, in avoidance of supporting evidence(s) submitted to ld. AO like transport bilties, transit declaration Forms issued Commercial taxes Department of UP State, weighing slips in some cases but without making any investigation, ld. AO prejudged the issue by stating at page (5) as under: “In response to you have filed