SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

bogus claim was detected only during the course of search and seizure action which was admitted by the assessee in the statement recorded under section 132(4). The disclosure of undisclosed income is in reference to the seized material which was found during the course of search. Once the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income based on the incriminating material

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A 5 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

132(4) and not under Section 133A. It was a statement by the Assessee himself. In response to question no. 7 whether all the purchases made by the family firms, were entered in the regular books of account, the answer was: "We and our family firms namely M/s. Assam Supari Traders and M/s. Balaji Perfumes generally try to record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of 5 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of 5 DCIT Vs Malti Agarwal the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of 5 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

132(4) of 5 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal the Act has clearly admitted the bogus claim of long term capital gain and therefore, disclosed the undisclosed income. Hence, Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable in the case of the assessee which makes it clear that if the Assessing Officer is satisfied that

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

purchase of material in the firm. This\nsurrender was made based on records seized as Annexure-AS Exhibit-\n7,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,21,22,24,26. Further, on the last page of statement\nof Shri Trilok Chand Jain recorded on 10.12.2015 u/s. 132(4) of the Act,\nShri Ashok Kumar Jain and Shri Rejash Kumar Jain

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 145(3), particularly when other ingredients of the transactions are undisputed. Next allegation to treat the purchases as bogus is that, the director of one of the concerns, M/s Clarity Gold (P) Ltd had admitted in a statement recorded u/s 132(4

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4) 40 R. P. Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT would not ipso facto be regarded as undisclosed income unless and until it is tested as per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. In the case in hand, there is no dispute that the assessee has duly recorded the transaction of purchase and sale

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus and the real transaction is as per \nsettlement.\nThese facts prove that the transactions as per the seized paper and as \nadmitted in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) were correct. In the seized paper \nalso it was mentioned that the laon is not to be repaid unless both parties agree. \nThis is further confirmed from the statement recorded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

purchased by the appellant and arrived at the conclusion that the company has weak financial and such weak financial does not merits the substantial share prices rise. 5.2 The AO, thus, has disallowed claim of STCG on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4) and subsequent affidavits. The AO referred & relied on the statements the entry operators

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

purchased by the appellant and arrived at the conclusion that the company has weak financial and such weak financial does not merits the substantial share prices rise. 5.2 The AO, thus, has disallowed claim of STCG on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4) and subsequent affidavits. The AO referred & relied on the statements the entry operators