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

set of facts placed before him and ld. DR except the fact that the assessee is involved in bogus entry provider list and the statement of two person recorded based on which the addition was made there is no other comparable case law cited or comparable assessee’s data submitted based on which the addition confirmed

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)

Loss Account for the past three years for your kind verification. You are sincerely requested to allow the appeal of the appellant and oblige.” 5.1. To support the contentions so raised and in addition to the written submission the ld. AR of the assessee has also submitted a paper book containing following documents which reads as under:- S. No. Particulars

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)

Loss A/c and Balance-sheet. 17 23 Copy of Purchase Bills along with the Confirmation. 24 29 3. 30 34 4. Copy of Bank Statement of the year under consideration. 5. Copy of Sales Bills. 35 68 Copy of Cash Book for the year under consideration. 67 77 6. 78 81 7. Copy of Reply dated 23.11.2019 filed before

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)

purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return of income declaring 4 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income of Ra 24,000/- after claiming set-off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter AO after

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

purchase and sale of property entered into by M/s Angel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is with related parties. Hence, these are not arms length transactions. The full value of consideration adopted in these transactions is not the actual value of the property being bought and sold. The value has been artificially adjusted to generate artificial capital loss in the hands

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

purchase and sale of property entered into by M/s Angel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is with related parties. Hence, these are not arms length transactions. The full value of consideration adopted in these transactions is not the actual value of the property being bought and sold. The value has been artificially adjusted to generate artificial capital loss in the hands

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

set aside proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed an adhoc addition of Rs. 5 Lacs out of the total addition of Rs. 50,37,792/- made by ld.AO by observing that since the sales are not doubted, this is a case where at the most the purchase amount would have been inflated. The present appeal arises from the said order

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

purchasing it from local market under the name & style of M/s S Naveen Jewellers. The assesses had filed return of income declaring 4 ITA No. 453/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income of Ra 24,000/- after claiming set-off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

setting of the taxable income against such bogus loss. i. Hefty commission is also charged by these operators from the beneficiaries of these accommodation entries. j. The share prices and sale purchase

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

purchases being bogus by writing back the amounts in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. Therefore, it is a clear case of disallowance in this year. Merely because the amount has been written back by the assessee in subsequent year does not entitle the assessee to claim this amount in the year concerned. The bogus entry cannot be allowed

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

purchases being bogus by writing back the amounts in AY 2018-19 and 2019-20. Therefore, it is a clear case of disallowance in this year. Merely because the amount has been written back by the assessee in subsequent year does not entitle the assessee to claim this amount in the year concerned. The bogus entry cannot be allowed

M/S SAFE INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-4, JAIPUR

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

Loss Account as expenditure. The Assessing Officer has stated that on verification of the details available on record, it has been noticed that the assessee has made bogus purchases; however, no specific averments are made as regards which details available on record reflected such bogus purchases. It is evident that the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reopening the assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S PYRAMID TRADELINKS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

bogus. Even the report of DIT (C & I) does not name the Broker MCPL to have been engaged in providing accommodation entries of profit or loss. Penalty of meager Rs. 5000 was imposed on MCPL for trades in Nickel in the month of October, 2010. Had MCPL indulged into non genuine DCIT vs. M/s Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur trades

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

set of books of accounts (including the purchases made from the alleged unverifiable parties), have also been considered in the original assessment. Hence, where the assessment has been completed by applying a GP Rate on the turnover after rejecting the books of accounts maintained in the regular course, further addition for bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above

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

set of books of accounts (including the purchases made from the alleged unverifiable parties), have also been considered in the original assessment. Hence, where the assessment has been completed by applying a GP Rate on the turnover after rejecting the books of accounts maintained in the regular course, further addition for bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above

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:

purchasing it from local market. The assessee carried on business in proprietorship under the name & style of M/s S. Naveen Jewellers. The assessee filed return of income declaring NIL income after claiming set of b/f losses. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and no notice

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Bogus Purchases: Disallowance cannot be made solely on third party information without subjecting it to further scrutiny. The assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their Income Tax Return

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