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

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

reassessment proceeding remained silent and has not made any effort to revert the contentions raised by the revenue. The fact of the case shows that during the course of reopened assessment for reasons that assessee has purchases of Rs 21,05,94,215/– as part of bogus

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.

bogus purchases is wrong and unjustified. The appellant has enclosed copies of its Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for the year under consideration for your kind verification (APB 38-39). Ground No. 2 : That the ld. CIT (A) has erred seriously in law and on facts in sustaining the validity of notice issued

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)

reassessment as the recorded purchases from the concerns of associates of Shri Rajendra Jain whose premises were searched by the revenue wherein Shri Rajendra Jain admitted that he is engaged in the bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

bogus sale.\"\n3.\nRecord reveals that in this case, the respondent assessee has raised\nlegal grounds in terms of rule 27 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)\nRules, 1963 alongwith a request to admit the same. Legal ground raised is\nreproduced below:-\n“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in\nconfirming

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment 143(3) by invoking section 145(3) and GP 406 proceedings on the rate was applied. Thereafter based on the information received informations supplied by Investigation from the Investigation Wing with respect to unverifiable Wing that assessee has purchases. obtained 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

reassessment as the recorded\npurchases from the concerns of associates of Shri Rajendra Jain whose\npremises were searched by the revenue wherein Shri Rajendra Jain\nadmitted that he is engaged in the bogus billing activities through the\n30\nITA No. 453/JP/2024\nDCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya\nvarious concerns. As the assessee has recorded of purchase

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)

reassessment proceeding remained silent and has not made any effort to revert the contentions raised by the revenue. The fact of the case shows that during reopened assessment for reasons that assessee has purchases of Rs 21,05,94,215/– as part of bogus

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

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)

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the approval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as nothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section 153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of approval, if any taken, have not mentioned

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment

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

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment

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)

reassessment on the basis of credible and specific information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Jamshedpur, and corroborated by the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, indicating that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. was a known entry operator engaged in issuing bogus purchase

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the\napproval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as\nnothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from\nAdditional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section\n153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of\napproval, if any taken, have not mentioned

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:

purchases made by assessee are genuine and not bogus. However, the A.O. vide impugned reassessment order by rejecting books of accounts

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

purchases. The intimation from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai was about the bogus investment/share applications. Thus, the Assessing Officer has not at all applied his mind while recording the reasons. The facts on record clearly establishes that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind so as to come to a conclusion that he has reason to believe that

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 and the consequent liability is also bogus. In the statement the key person himself has agreed to write off this amount as income shows that the liability is not genuine and is required to be tax in the year in which it is created. The contention of the assessee that they have write off the amount lying as sundry

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 and the consequent liability is also bogus. In the statement the key person himself has agreed to write off this amount as income shows that the liability is not genuine and is required to be tax in the year in which it is created. The contention of the assessee that they have write off the amount lying as sundry