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

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

survey u/s 133A of the Act. The AO disallowed 75% of the stipend expenditure claimed by the appellant against approximately

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallowed, subsequently relief was granted to the assessee appellant by the Hon'ble ITAT. 1.12. That survey proceeding u/s 133A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

133A was carried out on 09.12.2014 i.e.before the close of the relevant previous year, during which, the assessee admitted income of Rs. 3.94 ITA No. 267, 196 & 197/JPR/2024 17 Shri Nath Corporation & Ors., Jaipur. cr./- and including the same, ROA was filed u/s 139(1) on 15.09.2015 at total income of Rs. 3,95,19,200/-which was a voluntary

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

133A was carried out on 09.12.2014 i.e.before the close of the relevant previous year, during which, the assessee admitted income of Rs.3.94\ncr./- and including the same, ROA was filed u/s 139(1) on 15.09.2015 at total income of Rs.3,95,19,200/-which was a voluntary declaration.\n3.2 The very fact of the assessee declaring additional income during

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

133A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: “(2) The ground No. 2(i) of appeal relates to objecting the addition

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

133A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: “(2) The ground No. 2(i) of appeal relates to objecting the addition

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

133A of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: “(2) The ground No. 2(i) of appeal relates to objecting the addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

133A was carried out on 09.12.2014 i.e.before the close of\nthe relevant previous year, during which, the assessee admitted income of Rs.3.94\ncr./- and including the same, ROA was filed u/s 139(1) on 15.09.2015 at total\nincome of Rs.3,95,19,200/-which was a voluntary declaration.\n3.2\nThe very fact of the assessee declaring additional income during

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)

disallowances made by the AO as the same were fully explained thereby not sustainable under the eyes of law and facts discussed in details above. Therefore, grounds taken by the revenue deserves to be dismissed. DGOA-4 and 5: Statement recorded u/s 131(1) and not u/s 133A(3)(iii): Facts: The Revenue has raised the issue that: “4. Whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAKESH GOEL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

survey u/s 133A. It is held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High\nCourt that even though there was no provision to administer oath u/s.133A,\nit did not mean that statement could be retracted at whim and fancy of\nassessee. Based on that finding Id. AO made the addition of Rs.\n4,09,70,000/-.\n3.6 Ld. AO made the comparison

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act was also carried out at business premises of one M/s F.S. Housing Private Limited, Jaipur during the course of which some papers were found and impounded and thereon impugned additions have been made. Accordingly, notices u/s 153A of the Act dated 11.01.2019 were issued to the assessee, in response to which return declaring

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

u/s 133A was conducted at the business premises of assessee on 08.10.2014. The assessee offered additional income of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in survey and accordingly the return was filed on 22.01.2016 declaring total income of Rs.1,14,54,190/- including the income disclosed in the survey(PB 1-5). 3. The AO on perusal of books of accounts noted

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

survey u/s 133A, he has stated that the cash found at his residence belongs to his business and he was not clear as to which particular business concern he was referring to. In his subsequent statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) during the course of search, he has categorically admitted that the cash so found at his residence arises

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

133A of the IT Act 1961 was carried out on the business premises of the assessee who is a proprietor of M/s. Bhim Sen Ram Swaroop, B-7, New Subji Mandi, Alwar. During the survey, it has been noticed that sale transactions of Rs. 3,14,490/- entered in dasti books were found unrecorded in regular books of accounts which