ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

260 or section 262 is received by\nthe Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed\nby the 48[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal\nCommissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be]”\n1.2 In the facts of the present

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 48[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be]” 1.2 In the facts of the present

V C GRANITES,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

260/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of all kinds of granite products. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee group and family members i.e. “Saini-Gupta-Jain-Malpani- Somani

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

260/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of all kinds of granite products. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 13.02.2020 at the residential and business premises of the assessee group and family members i.e. “Saini-Gupta-Jain-Malpani- Somani

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)

Charitable Trust [2022] 144 taxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) [31-10-2022] "63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have legal force. Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported by affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under force, coercion and by lodging

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Charitable Trust [2022] 144\ntaxmann.com 54 (Madras)/[2023] 450 ITR 368 (Madras) (31-10-2022]\n\"63. The statements given to the Assessing officer under section 132 (4) have\nlegal force Unless the retractions are made within a short span of time, supported\nby affidavit swearing that the contents are incorrect and it was obtained under\nforce, coercion

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 69 was to confer a discretion on the AO in the\nmatter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily\nexplained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the AO is not\nobliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the\nexplanation offered by the assessee is found

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 132(4) of\nthe Act the appellant has clearly explained on his own in the query raised by the\nofficer i.e. the appellant himself has clarified that he had paid an amount of Rs.\n21,11,000/- and later on the property was registered in the name of other buyer.\nThe relevant parts are extracted in the assessment order

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 69 was to confer a discretion on the AO in the\nmatter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily\nexplained by the assessee as the income of the assessee and the AO is not\nobliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the\nexplanation offered by the assessee is found

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Charitable Trust vs. ITO (2017) 249 taxman 0372 (Madras) • Hosanna Ministries vs. ITO (2017) DTR 0008 (Mad.) • Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel vs. ITO (2013) 213 Taxman 37 (Mag.) (Guj.) (HC) • Vijay Vishin Meghani & Anr. Vs. DCIT & Anr. (Bom.HC), (2017) 100 CCH 0034 6 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT • Diamong Cargo Movers vs. State Tax Officer [2024] 167 taxmann.com

JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-DCIT CIRCLE (EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 264 and not in appellate proceedings. The action of Id. ADDL/JCIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by entertaining the claim at appellate stage. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. ADDL/JCIT (A) has erred in confirming the action