RATAN TAXTILES P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

disallowing 75% of the stipend expenses claimed by the appellant. (viii) It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT Vs Shri Roshan Lai (Supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court that the statement recorded under Section 133A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallow only. What will be the position – Nil effect on the Profit as disclosed by the Assessee. It is part of appreciation to the Assessee that he has disclosed the actual net profit as per norms of the business in the position where he know that there are seized documents in possession of the Department. • I am of the opinion

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAKESH GOEL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section\n40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, addition of Rs.90,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on\naccount of non-deduction of TDS on interest payment is hereby sustained and\nground of appeal is dismissed\nThe grounds No. 4 of the appeal is dismissed.\n4.8 The ground No. 5 pertains to disallowance of interest expenses of\nRs.23

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) and the addition/disallowance made under section 24(a) of Rs. 1,92,000/-. The ld. CIT (A) has though confirmed the levy of penalty, however, to the extent of 100% as against the 200% levied by the AO in respect of undisclosed sales of Rs. 5,04,985/- and the addition made under

PALIWAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition.” In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance in the following case – CIT V/s M/s Maverick Share Brokers P. Ltd 57 TW 87(Raj.) CIT Vs. Khader Khan

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

BHARAT ASSOCIATES,BUNDI vs. ACIT (OSD), BUNDI

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbharat Associates, Gayatri Nagar, Bundi, Bundi 323001. Pan No. Aamfb 3655N ..... Appellant Vs.

133A of the Act. The assessee declared Rs. 97,21,000/- during the survey operations, but the assessee in its return declared an undisclosed income of Rs. 97,21,000/-and claimed expenses on account of construction amounting to Rs. 62,28,497/-. The case of the assessee was selected under the category of compulsory scrutiny as the assessee

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot independently justify

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

133A but a statement under section 131 of the IT Act was recorded subsequently on 1st March, 2013 wherein the assessee has affirmed the excess stock found during the survey and value of the said stock as taken at the time of survey. Therefore, there was no whisper about the reduction of market price of gold during the intervening period

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

section 12A(1)(b) states that: [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply inrelation to the income of any trust or institution unless the followingconditions are fulfilled, namely:- (b)where the total income of the trust or institution as computedunder this Act without giving effect to [the provisions of section 11 andsection 12 exceeds

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity