ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act and therefore, addition made by the AO by treating these amounts as unexplained cash loan is unwarranted and unjustified. 3 Without prejudice to above, AO has made the addition of the amounts noted on this paper u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act reads as under: Where any sum is found credited

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

292C of the Act and therefore, addition made by the AO by treating these amounts as unexplained cash loan is unwarranted and unjustified. 3 Without prejudice to above, AO has made the addition of the amounts noted on this paper u/s 68 of the Act. Section 68 of the Act reads as under: Where any sum is found credited

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

292C is that the contents of the document found in course of search u/s 132 are true. Hence whatever is written in the document found in search is true. The source of transaction is mentioned in the seized document itself. Therefore your proposal to add the total amount of receipts and payments of Rs. 11,67,49,270/- is incorrect

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

292C is that the contents of the document found in course of search u/s 132 are true. Hence whatever is written in the document found in search is true. The source of transaction is mentioned in the seized document itself. Therefore your proposal to add the total amount of receipts and payments of Rs. 11,67,49,270/- is incorrect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

292C of the Act. The WhatsApp msg. shows execution of actual transaction. There are two categories of transactions. One category is of transaction where cash is mentioned and another is of transaction where kg is mentioned. The onus is on the appellant to explain each and every message. The Ld. CIT (A) thereafter at Pg. 61-75 of the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

292C of the Act. The WhatsApp msg. shows execution of actual transaction. There are two categories of transactions. One category is of transaction where cash is mentioned and another is of transaction where kg is mentioned. The onus is on the appellant to explain each and every message. The Ld. CIT (A) thereafter at Pg. 61-75 of the order

SH. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

292C of the Act. The WhatsApp msg. shows execution of actual transaction. There are two categories of transactions. One category is of transaction where cash is mentioned and another is of transaction where kg is mentioned. The onus is on the appellant to explain each and every message. The Ld. CIT (A) thereafter at Pg. 61-75 of the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (i)that such books of account

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

292C. (1) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under section 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed- (i)that such books of account

SHRI JAISINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

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.” ii. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs Smt. Daksha Jain DB iii. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-III) v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) wherein whole gamut

SHRI JAISINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

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.” ii. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Central, Jaipur Vs Smt. Daksha Jain DB iii. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-III) v. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) wherein whole gamut

CHANDALAL VERMA, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACITDCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

292C of the Act. Even in the return in pursuance to section 148 of the Act, the assessee further declared and revised the return by disclosing Rs. 5.51 Lacs in addition to the original figure of income declared earlier. 5. We have carefully considered the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT (A), wherein the grounds taken

CHANDALAL VERMA, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA , KOTA

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

292C of the Act. Even in the return in pursuance to section 148 of the Act, the assessee further declared and revised the return by disclosing Rs. 5.51 Lacs in addition to the original figure of income declared earlier. 5. We have carefully considered the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT (A), wherein the grounds taken

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.

292C of the Act. When no independent material or evidence had been brought or record by the AO to establish that the noting as appearing in the computer prints out (Reference Seized Documents Annexure-A-2 Pg 1 to 4) which according to him, represented an unaccounted transaction; then AO has no option but to accept the explanation

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SMT. PUSHPA GOYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance of indexation cost. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur is justified in treating the shops sold as capital asset instead of stock in trade. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur

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.

section 292C of the Act, it further clarifies the legal position and justifies the action of the AO and is further confirmed by Ld. CIT (A). In view of this, this disallowance