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

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

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

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

Reassessment) 10AA is allowed. AO: 18.12.17 Addition made on account of Bogus Purchase 2012-2013 Bogus Purchase Deduction u/s Order

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

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)

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee’s group concern i.e. M/s Reliance Corporate IT Park

VIKAS DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Actual Hearing Of The Case.”

bogus but we are unable to see any such evidence which has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer either during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 or the reassessment proceedings for the impunged AY 2007-08. The only grievance of the 13 Vikas Dugar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-02, Jaipur Assessing Officer is that

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

purchases and\nassessee is one of the beneficiaries who has carried out bogus transaction with\nM/s DRAIPL to the extent of Rs.6,46,31,000/- in the relevant assessment year\nand accordingly reached to the satisfaction that income to this extent has escaped\nassessment.\n\nFrom perusal of above, it is crystal clear that information, based on which notice\nu/s

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

purchases as well in the\nguise of loan to various other companies. It has also been gathered that during\nF.Y. 2009-10 one LMJ group of companies had transferred fund to the tune of Rs.\n108,67,95,000/- to the account of Satyatej Vyapaar Pvt Ltd., a paper company, in\nthe form of Bogus Expenses through bogus billing. Such

GUPTSA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

bogus purchases vouchers have cropped up in the case of the case of the sister concern M/S Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. in the be completed with reference to search material only. But in this case, as no incriminating material was found, additions have not been made with reference to incriminating material. In the entire assessment order, there is no reference

GUPTSA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

bogus purchases vouchers have cropped up in the case of the case of the sister concern M/S Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. in the be completed with reference to search material only. But in this case, as no incriminating material was found, additions have not been made with reference to incriminating material. In the entire assessment order, there is no reference