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

bogus purchase bills from\nthe above entry providers. In the list supplied by the DCIT, CC-4, Surat\nname of the assessee Shri Sunder Das Sonkia (Prop. M/s S. Naveen\nJewellers) also find place who had obtained purchase bills amounting to\nRs. 1,73,34,424/- from Mis Aadi Impex (Prop. Anoop Jain), M/s Arihant\n5\nITA No. 453/JP/2024\nDCIT

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. However, the A.O. vide impugned reassessment order by rejecting books of accounts of assessee and invoked provisions of section 145 (3) of the Act and disallowed 25% of said purchases and made trading addition of Rs.2,90

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

90-106 [PBI] proportionate basis 2014-2015 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s Order: 107-121 [PBI] AO: 25.11.16 10AA is allowed. Addition made on 12 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT account of Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

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

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

M/S. G.B.IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases in his books of accounts. In such circumstances, it was not possible for him to ascertain true picture of profit rate. Thus, he rejected the assessee's books of accounts u/s. 145(3) of the Act and disallowed 25% of alleged unverifiable purchases amounting to Rs. 3,90,47,452/- received from as many as 12 parties resulting

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GARG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

Section 145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 2 Shri Anil Kumar Garg vs. ITO 90,785/- by unlawfully declaring the purchases of Rs. 3,63,139/- as bogus

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

bogus purchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious purchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such purchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts. Considering that overall facts we direct the ld. AO to consider the income on the transaction to the extent of the gross profit declared Sh. Tarachand Gupta

NRI-BUILDTECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. PCIT JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 724/Jpr/2024 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Nri-Buildtech (India) Private Limited Cuke The Pcit Vs. Main Road Chopanki, Near Power Jaipur-1, Jaipur. House, Vill- Bilahedi, Bhilwadi, Alwar. Lfkk;Hys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaecn3080A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@Assesseeby : None Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By : Shri Ajay Malik (Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2024

90,188/- on account of short fall contract, Rs. 83,08,238/- on account of unproved purchases and Rs. 2,09,251/- on account of delayed contribution to ESIC and PF. The addition was made on account of unproved purchases as assessee had failed to submit the breakup of its entire purchases during the course of assessment proceedings. 5.3 During

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

bogus sub-contract\nexpenses and purchases. Further M/s. DRAIPL was awarded a Project of Two\nlaningLadnu-Nimbi Jodha-Degana- Merta City section road in length of 140 km\nunder NHDP-IV from National Highway Authority of India on 31.07.2013 for a total\nproject cost of Rs.378.46 Crores (APB 106). The construction of ROB & Re wall\n(90

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

90,627/- Assessed u/s set aside/158BC read with section 143(3) at income of Rs. 54,40,344/-.” 3. At the same time, Learned Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 158BFA(2) separately, in view of the finding that the undisclosed income determined as above, was far in excess of the undisclosed income declared by the assessee in the block

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 [

bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income of the appellant. The appellant is a trader and not a manufacturer of the oil in which the appellant is dealing. The books of accounts of the appellant have been rejected in the assessment order. During the survey proceedings the appellant has already offered an additional income of Rs.1

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)

90 writ petition, delivered a landmark judgment vide its Ojjus Medicare (p) Ltd. order dated 03.04.2024 in [2024]taxmann.com 160 held that:- “119….. A… B…. C. Section 153C, on the other hand, pertains to the non-searched entity and in respect of whom any material, books of accounts or documents may have been seized and were found to or pertain

SMT ANJU LASHKERY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus and unverifiable. 5 Smt. Anju Lashkery vs. ITO Since the purchases from two parties are not verifiable. Even in set aside proceedings and also in appellate proceedings, assessee has failed to verify the same. Therefore, rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) by Ld. Assessing Officer is correct and hereby upheld. 2.3.1 After rejection of Books of Accounts

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

90,040/- 14. M/s Laxmi Enterprises Rs. 38,30,745/- 15. M/s Harsh Impex Rs. 13,48,300/- 16. M/s natural Gems Rs. 28,72,714/- 17. M/s Vardhman Enterprises Rs. 34,56,611/- Total Rs.3,17,55,786/- 3.5 The Ld. AO made addition of all the sundry creditors as listed herein above in the hands of the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR vs. SEWA STEEL PVT. LTD., BHIWADI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.573& 181/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13& 2013-14 The ACIT Circle-2, Alwar cuke Vs. M/s. Sewa Steel Pvt. Ltd. E-90-C, Industrial Area, Tijara Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 4307 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Laxman Singh, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : None lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date

Section 43(1)of the Act to reduce the amount of investment subsidy of Rs.39,45,868/- from cost of fixed assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation allowable to the assessee as a deduction.’’ 2.0 It is pertinent to mention that the intimation was sent by the Registry by Registered Post to the assessee to its last known

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)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have