DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this issue in which the SLP filed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this issue in which the SLP filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons of natural justice in itself

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed income instead of obtaining the statement and then support of their claim merely on the basis of the statement. Therefore, the statements 35 Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota recorded by the DDIT Kolkata are also not based on any documentary evidence so as to have an evidentiary value for sustaining the additions made

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

undisclosed income of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nI have considered the reply of the appellant and the finding of the AO in\nthe assessment order. In this regard my findings are as under.\n1. In the reply, the appellant has submitted that in exhibit -5 at page no.\n16,17,19 & 20 and exhibit -4 page no. 7 & 8 are claimed

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

undisclosed\nincome of the Private Limited company and he further reconfirmed\nin the statement recorded in the second statement recorded u/s 131\nof the IT Act, 1961. Thereafter, Shri Banna Lal Jat informed that\nthe said cash belongs to his proprietorship concern. In applicant's\ncase as evident from the assessment order that its facts are all\ntogether different

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

undisclosed interest earned on FDRs and not appreciating the fact that as the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted on the said interest as per section 199 of the IT Act, such income

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.

undisclosed India Developers income of Rs. Pvt. Ltd. dt. 30,00,31,216/- in the 04/09/2013 hands of the company 2. 2,50,00,000/- Other discrepancies Q. No. 13 of Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has statements of also furnished affidavit Shri Vijay Jain dated 18/09/2013 for director of M/s confirming the admission JKD Pearl India of on-money

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

undisclosed income of the assessee.\nConclusion:\nI have considered the reply of the appellant and the finding of the AO in\nthe assessment order. In this regard my findings are as under.\n1. In the reply, the appellant has submitted that in exhibit -5 at page no.\n16,17,19 & 20 and exhibit -4 page no. 7 & 8 are claimed

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

income has suffered TDS it cannot be said to be undisclosed income of the assessee. We have gone through the decisions