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)

u/s. 153A of the Act on 24.12.2019 making addition of Rs. 1,30,67,878/- on account of unexplained trading addition. Thereafter the matter travelled up to the Hon’ble jurisdictional high wherein the court so far as regarding the bogus purchases of the held that “On the question of bogus purchase, the matter is remitted back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

133A(3)(iii) and/or u/s 131, has no evidentary value and not being conclusive, no addition can be made merely on that basis). On the contrary, it is discernible from his findings in all the 4 cases, where he has granted relief, he has extensively dealt with the merits of each case for examining the impounded documents, explanation of assessee

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

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: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order

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.

u/s 145(3). However, since the assessee was engaged in corresponding sales, the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 8,77,442/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases. 5.6 As can be seen, information was available before the AO as given by DGIT (inv) Mumbai, which demonstrated that the suppliers from whom the appellant claimed to have effected purchases

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)

u/s 145(3). However, since the assessee was engaged in corresponding sales, the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 80,48,367/- being 25% of alleged purchases. 5.6 As can be seen, information was available before the AO as given by DGIT(inv) Mumbai, which demonstrated that the suppliers from whom the appellant claimed to have effected purchases

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)

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." 19.1 Vide

J C HOME TEX,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus expenses.\nIn grounds of appeal no. 1,4 & 1.5, assessee has challenged action of Id. CIT(A)\nin making all the additions primarily due to admission made by assessee during\nsurvey and thus not considering the plea of assessee regarding purchases\nworth Rs. 82,40,125/, being entered in books of accounts after survey\nIn ground of appeal no.1.6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

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)

survey under Section- 133A conducted in FY2007-08 by the BCTT Wing of the Investigation Directorate Govindam Export vs. DCIT of Jaipur which revealed that Clarity Gold Pvt Ltd. And its sister concerns M/s Marine Minerals and Herbal Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.13.59 crores from various entry providers, who provided bogus sale bills

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account\nSimilar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of\nRaj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench (DPB 108-166)\nAttention is drawn towards Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case\nof Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that

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)

survey actions were conducted in the case of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar and Sh. Anil Khemka and in their statements recorded u/s 133A, they stated that they were involved in providing accommodation entries on commission basis by arranging purchase and sale of shares of various companies, including M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. The relevant extracts of the statements of these

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

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

survey actions were conducted in the case of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar and Sh. Anil Khemka and in their statements recorded u/s 133A, they stated that they were involved in providing accommodation entries on commission basis by arranging purchase and sale of shares of various companies, including M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. The relevant extracts of the statements of these

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus sale bills. 5.7 Further, to verify the genuineness of the purchaser as shown by the assessee company on dated 08-11-2016. A survey action u/s 133A

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)

u/s. 153A of the Act on 24.12.2019 making addition of Rs. 1,30,67,878/- on account of unexplained trading addition. Thereafter the matter travelled up to the Hon’ble jurisdictional high wherein the court so far as regarding the bogus purchases of the held that “On the question of bogus purchase, the matter is remitted back

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)

u/s. 153A of the Act on 24.12.2019 making addition of Rs. 1,30,67,878/- on account of unexplained trading addition. Thereafter the matter travelled up to the Hon’ble jurisdictional high wherein the court so far as regarding the bogus purchases of the held that “On the question of bogus purchase, the matter is remitted back

RAKESH KUMAR SINGRODIA,MUKUNDGARH MANDI, JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WD 1, JHUNJHUNU, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases made by the Appellant alleged to be bogus, for reasons stated in the impugned order or otherwise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O in making addition of Rs. 25,10,400/- u/s 68 of the Act, being sale

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

purchase. This is not a standard or common practice of the jewellery industry. Also it is seen that the number of items such numericals are not mentioned. The details in the software have never been submitted before the Department in earlier years. Such details as available in the software are not available for the earlier years. There is no linkage

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

purchased in the name of Sh. Pooran Mal kanwat by M/s Macro Properties Private Limited & M/s Macro Township Private Limited from various Khatedars for total sale consideration of Rs. 4,30,58,000/- was later on converted from agricultural to mixed uses by JDA on the application filed for conversion of the land by Sh. Kapil Bhakar, Power of Attorney