Rajesh Jain v. DCIT

100 TTJ 929Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#2685 most cited

What is Rajesh Jain v. DCIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation, even if later retracted, does not automatically lose its evidentiary value; however, any addition based solely on such a retracted statement must be corroborated by independent material evidence.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajesh Jain v. DCIT · Section 132(4) · retracted statement · statement during search · evidentiary value of statement · corroboration of statement · Section 132 · search assessment · admission under section 132(4)

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 132Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qretraction of statementsection 158bb(1)section 193section 65b(4)section 158bbsection 158b(b)statement under section 132(4)retracted statement

Judgments citing Rajesh Jain v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) 27 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) " CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) " CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (M…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag) DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren: ITA Nos.5596…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) 27 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) " CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) " CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (M…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag) DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren: ITA Nos.5596…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -05, Delhi

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) 27 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others " Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) " CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) " CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (M…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag) DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren: ITA Nos.5596…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag) DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren: ITA Nos.5596…

Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…T vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi) Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj) CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag) DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren: ITA Nos.5596…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd.) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) 62. To the same effect are the decision in the following cases:  PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Delhi)  Krishan Lal Shiv Chandra Rai vs. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H)  CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders: 372 ITR 507 (Guj)  CIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Jain: 201 Taxman 95 (Jhar) (Mag)  DCIT vs. Sanjeev J Aeren:…

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

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

…nclusive as to be truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue”. 4.4.3 In Rajesh Jain v/s 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, inter alia, where the conduct of 7 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA VS NISHA JAIN, KOTA affairs by the Revenue Authorities showed that good amount of psychological pressure was built on the assessee to make the said state…

Srishti Associates, Kota, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota, Kota-Rajasthan

ITA 587/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 246ASection 44A

…of 2007, (vii) Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 355 (Gujarat), (viii) CIT v/s G.Krishnan (1994) 210 ITR 707 Mad. (ix) Jodhpur ITAT Bench in Maheshwari Industries v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 148 Taxman 74 (Jodh) (Mag.), (x) Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT 100 TTJ 929 (ITAT, Delhi 'A' Bench), (xi) KRISHNA TERINE (P) LTD. ASSISTANT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ‘D' BENCH 56 DTR, ITAT 395, (xii) Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Pawan Lashkary ITA No 808/JP/2011 dated 06.01.2012 (xiii) 34 ITA NO. 587/JP/2024 SRISHTI ASSOCIATES VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…h is not backed by credible evidence. Reliance is placed on • Instruction No. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002 • Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200 • CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • Shree Ganesh Tradin…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…h is not backed by credible evidence. Reliance is placed on • Instruction No. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002 • Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200 CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • • Shree Ganesh Tradin…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…h is not backed by credible evidence. Reliance is placed on • Instruction No. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002 • Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 21 of 73 • CIT v. Ashok Kuma…

M/S. Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ted and no incriminating document was found to support the impugned addition, the addition was to be deleted. Page 16 of 23 M/s Kakda Steel Private Limited Assessment year 2014-15 25. Rajesh Jain V. DCIT Confessional statement should be corroborated [2006] 100 TTJ 929 with some material evidence to show that (Delhi) assessment was just and fair. 26. Jyotichand Bhaichand It was held that no addition can be made merely Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) in DCIT [2013] 86 DTR absence of corroborative evidence. (Pune) 289 27. CIT vs S. Ajit Kumar 300 Where no material was found d…

DCIT Cent.Cir-8(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Farooq Ali Khan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3925/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153A

…32(4) does not tantamount to unearthing any incriminating evidence during the course of search 9 A.Y.2014-15 and therefore, no addition can be made only on the basis of such a statement. 8.20 The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has held in Rajesh Jain v. DCIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929(Del. Trib) that an addition made solely on the basis of the confessional statement of an assessee that he had earned some amount in “the last certain years is not justified. Such a confessional statement should have been corroborated with some material to show that the assessment made is just and fair. The Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal has held in the c…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…s are given their legal, rightful and legitimate claims and deduction and other benefits. Whatever may be the reason or ground it is not unknown that the assessees have fear and are afraid of entering in the Income tax Department." Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) Computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of assessee was not justified, inter alia, where the conduct of affairs by the Revenue authorities showed that good amount of psychological pressure was built on the assessee to make the said statement and all material found during search was duly expla…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…s are given their legal, rightful and legitimate claims and deduction and other benefits. Whatever may be the reason or ground it is not unknown that the assessees have fear and are afraid of entering in the Income tax Department." Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) Computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of assessee was not justified, inter alia, where the conduct of affairs by the Revenue authorities showed that good amount of psychological pressure was built on the assessee to make the said statement and all material found during search was duly expla…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…s are given their legal, rightful and legitimate claims and deduction and other benefits. Whatever may be the reason or ground it is not unknown that the assessees have fear and are afraid of entering in the Income tax Department." Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) Computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of assessee was not justified, inter alia, where the conduct of affairs by the Revenue authorities showed that good amount of psychological pressure was built on the assessee to make the said statement and all material found during search was duly expla…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…s are given their legal, rightful and legitimate claims and deduction and other benefits. Whatever may be the reason or ground it is not unknown that the assessees have fear and are afraid of entering in the Income tax Department." Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) Computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of assessee was not justified, inter alia, where the conduct of affairs by the Revenue authorities showed that good amount of psychological pressure was built on the assessee to make the said statement and all material found during search was duly expla…

Rajesh Jain v. DCIT (100 TTJ 929) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax