Mum) (b) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (c) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…asis of uncorroborated noting on loose sheets and papers – (1) S.P. Goyal VS. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (2) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vs ACIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) Jayanti Lal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna Lal…

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…) 25 Tax World 87 (Raj. High Court) 6. Addition could not be made on the basis of uncorroborated notings on loose sheets and papers S Goyal vs DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) Bansal Strips Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (2005) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) 7. No addition on the basis of ‘dumb paper’ DCIT vs Rajendra Kumar Sancheti (ITAT Jaipur) 42 TW 152 Mohan Foods Ltd vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 27 DTR 185 Moolchand Kumawat &Sons vs DCIT (Ajmer) 42 TW 241 3.2.5. REVENUE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ‘ PICK& CHOOSE” : During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ld AO recorded the statement of the ass…

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

…) 25 Tax World 87 (Raj. High Court) 6. Addition could not be made on the basis of uncorroborated notings on loose sheets and papers S Goyal vs DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) Bansal Strips Pvt Ltd vs ACIT (2005) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) 7. No addition on the basis of ‘dumb paper’ DCIT vs Rajendra Kumar Sancheti (ITAT Jaipur) 42 TW 152 Mohan Foods Ltd vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) 27 DTR 185 Moolchand Kumawat &Sons vs DCIT (Ajmer) 42 TW 241 3.2.5. REVENUE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ‘ PICK& CHOOSE” : During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ld AO recorded the statement of the ass…

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

…basis of uncorroborated noting on loose sheets and papers – (1) S.P. Goyal VS. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (2) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vsA CIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) JayantiLal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) RakeshGoyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna LalJh…

RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

…basis of uncorroborated noting on loose sheets and papers. (a) S. Goyal Vs. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (b) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (c) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (d) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP)” 10. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Before we proceed further, it is necessa…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

…basis of uncorroborated noting on loose sheets and papers. (a) S. Goyal Vs. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (b) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (c) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (d) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP)” 10. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Before we proceed further, it is necessa…

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

…basis of uncorroborated noting on loose sheets and papers. (a) S. Goyal Vs. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (b) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (c) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (d) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP)” 10. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Before we proceed further, it is necessa…