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 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. As ground no., 1 and 3 are against the same action of the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT (A) and are containing identical facts and submissions and hence both the grounds viz. 1 and 3 are being argued simultaneously. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts

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 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

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 133A. The statements so recorded have no sanctity in the eyes of law and is illegal and deserves to be ignored. Copy of affidavit duly notarized by Sh. Raghu Dutt Tiwari on 19.6.2009 and submitted before the District Magistrate and copy of which is already with the income tax Department is enclosed herewith which will clarify our submission

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:-

section 271(1)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations and opinion

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 271(1)©of the Act are allowed. ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member PER :NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I have gone through the draft order communicated by my Learned Brother-Accountant Member. I have reasons to add in dealing with the issue involved, and as such, I proceed to append my reasons, observations and opinion

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

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)

bogus purchase was involved and in that case profit estimated @ 25 %. Thus, he supported the addition made by the AO @ 25 % of purchase. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the findings recorded by the AO that how the exact credit and debit transactions recorded in the parties from where these purchases are accounted. He has also drawn

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

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

section 145(2) of the Act. 16. While relying on decision in N.K. Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, learned DR for the Revenue has contended that therein the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus

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

purchases amounting to Rs. 2, 92, 93,288/- and taxing only 25 per cent of these bogus claim goes against the principles of sections

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:

92,82,240/-. As it is commonly known that the profit margin in diamond is much lesser than in colour stones which ranged between 6% to 9% and therefore G.P. rate of this year has fallen as compared to earlier years. The purchases made has been exported as it is and there is bill to bill tally of purchase

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

purchase amounting to Rs.2,92,93,288/- and taxing\nonly 25% of these bogus claim goes against The principles of section

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,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)

section 260A (Set-Aside) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. Ravi Haldia vs. DCIT 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties

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)

section 260A (Set-Aside) r.w.s 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. Ravi Haldia vs. DCIT 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure disputed in each year, therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

92 per cent of the gross\nreceipts. Therefore, in the present case, the provisions of section\n69C cannot be applied.\nThat in present case Humble Appellant Declared 13% of Gross\nReceipts ie above than 8% & learned Assessing Officer have\naccepted the return Income thus excessive additions made on\naccount of Purchases is against the Law & provisions

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