228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand v. ACIT (63 TTJ 236)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

…strong evidentiary value and is binding on a person, who makes it. 6.5.8 Other Decisions Relied upon by the Appellant The Decisions relied upon the Appellant are discussed as under - Relying on the decisions referred as 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), 73 ITD 434 (Chd) & 63 TTJ 236 (Del) it is argued that it is trite law that the person making an admission is not always bound by it but, if shown that it was due to ambiguity, under tension or was against the facts. it can always be retracted. As discussed admission under oath on the basis of incriminating documents found during the search is an important piece of evidence. T…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who makes the admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not show the correct state of facts. viii) 63 TTJ 236 (Del) Rishabh Kumar Jain v ACIT ix) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) Karam Chand vs. ACIT Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee surrendered certain amount in his statement under section 132(4) but, later, having found on going through seized documents that income kept away was much more and that related…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who makes the admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not show the correct state of facts. viii) 63 TTJ 236 (Del) Rishabh Kumar Jain v ACIT ix) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) Karam Chand vs. ACIT Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee surrendered certain amount in his statement under section 132(4) but, later, having found on going through seized documents that income kept away was much more and that related…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who makes the admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not show the correct state of facts. viii) 63 TTJ 236 (Del) Rishabh Kumar Jain v ACIT ix) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) Karam Chand vs. ACIT Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee surrendered certain amount in his statement under section 132(4) but, later, having found on going through seized documents that income kept away was much more and that related…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the assessee who makes the admission to show that it is incorrect and the assessee should be given a proper opportunity to show that the books of account do not show the correct state of facts. viii) 63 TTJ 236 (Del) Rishabh Kumar Jain v ACIT ix) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) Karam Chand vs. ACIT Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment year 1988-89 - Assessee surrendered certain amount in his statement under section 132(4) but, later, having found on going through seized documents that income kept away was much more and that related…

M/S Murlidhar Deendyal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the AO is directed to restrict the penalty to Rs 28,240/- and the remaining penalty is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1389/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No. 1389-JP-2018 M/s Murlidhar Deen Dayal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer R. K. Synthetics 30 TW 228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 434 (Chd): (2000) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) & Rishab Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ 236 (Del). In the case of Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del), held that computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of the assessee was not justified. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of Rs. 28,240/- being profit element on unaccounte…

Murlidhar Deendyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 329/JPR/2016[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2020

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 329/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Murlidhar Deendayal, cuke Income Tax Officer, Vs. Parao, Ajmer. Ward 1(2), Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFM 0693 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Hemang Gargieya (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/11/2…

228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand v. ACIT

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand v. ACIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

M/S Murlidhar Deendyal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

Murlidhar Deendyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer