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

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

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

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

4) of the Act which did not\nconstitute conclusive evidence and having been given under mental\nduress and pressure created by the search team and other 3 persons,\nwho had already admitted and offered in their statement in their\nwisdom to suit their purpose. Moreover, admission was not acted upon\n\nby not offering the income in the ROI filed

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

4. Judicial Pronouncements relied upon: (i) It would be appropriate to reproduce the head note in the case of CIT Vs ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles [2016] 70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

4. Judicial Pronouncements relied upon: (i) It would be appropriate to reproduce the head note in the case of CIT Vs ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles [2016] 70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

4. Judicial Pronouncements relied upon: (i) It would be appropriate to reproduce the head note in the case of CIT Vs ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles [2016] 70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years

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

4) of the Act which did not \nconstitute conclusive evidence and having been given under mental \nduress and pressure created by the search team and other 3 persons, \nwho had already admitted and offered in their statement in their \nwisdom to suit their purpose. Moreover, admission was not acted upon \nby not offering the income in the ROI filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

4) of the Act was recorded of Shri Satish Monga on 09.07.2018 wherein he admitted that the investment made through M/s GRG Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd in M/s Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd was nothing but an accommodation entry on commission basis. Shri Satish Monga, Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta & Sh. Shashikant Khetan clearly admitted that the investment made through M/s GRG Merchantiles

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

disallowance of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of statement of entry operator & consequent report by the investigation wing and also the confession of appellant made u/s 132(4) of the Act (later retracted). Statement u/s 131 of the act or u/s 132(4) of the act alone cannot be construed as evidences

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

disallowance of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of statement of entry operator & consequent report by the investigation wing and also the confession of appellant made u/s 132(4) of the Act (later retracted). Statement u/s 131 of the act or u/s 132(4) of the act alone cannot be construed as evidences

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

disallowance of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of statement of entry operator & consequent report by the investigation wing and also the confession of appellant made u/s 132(4) of the Act (later retracted). Statement u/s 131 of the act or u/s 132(4) of the act alone cannot be construed as evidences

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

disallowance of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of statement of entry operator & consequent report by the investigation wing and also the confession of appellant made u/s 132(4) of the Act (later retracted). Statement u/s 131 of the act or u/s 132(4) of the act alone cannot be construed as evidences

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

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

disallowance of claim u/s 10(38) of the Act on the basis of statement of entry operator & consequent report by the investigation wing and also the confession of appellant made u/s 132(4) of the Act (later retracted). Statement u/s 131 of the act or u/s 132(4) of the act alone cannot be construed as evidences