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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of Rs. 9400/- of deduction claimed under section 80C of the Act. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB by issuing show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 when the assessment order was passed and further a notice dated 12.08.2016 was also issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB of the Act. In reply

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)

132(4) during the course of search. Appellant prays that statements were obtained on dotted lines and under duress and therefore cannot be solely relied upon for making disallowance unless the same is supported with corroborative documentary evidences. 3.2. That, ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,14,20,553/- made by ld.AO

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

132(4) has admitted and disclosed an amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 12,61,51,540/- which included undisclosed income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

132(4), such a statement can be used as a strong evidence against the assessee in assessing the income, the burden lies on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statements are incorrect/wrong and that burden has to be discharged by an assessee at the earliest point of time.... such a so-called retraction in our view

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.

Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retracted the same because such retraction ought to have been generally made within reasonable time or by filing complaint to superior authorities or otherwise brought to notice of the higher officials

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra). Besides

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

4 persons, all affairs of the other three were binding upon the assessee. If it was really so, then entire income of Rs. 4.50 crore was earned by that partnership firm alone. Correct person of the assessment for this purpose was this partnership firm alone. Needless to say, that there is a separate entity of partnership firm covered

M/S BANNALAL JAT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,BHILWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed

section 131. Hence, in light of above discussions, the retraction of the statement recorded u/s 132(4) cannot be accepted in the instant case. 25. In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the cases and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (supra), the addition towards the undisclosed income in form of cash found during

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

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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. The AO also referred to the report of SEBI, and the report of expert committee. In the detailed submission made by the assessee it has vehemently argued that the settled position

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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. The AO also referred to the report of SEBI, and the report of expert committee. In the detailed submission made by the assessee it has vehemently argued that the settled position

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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. The AO also referred to the report of SEBI, and the report of expert committee. In the detailed submission made by the assessee it has vehemently argued that the settled position

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

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. The AO also referred to the report of SEBI, and the report of expert committee. In the detailed submission made by the assessee it has vehemently argued that the settled position