RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

4) of the Act, the Hon'ble\nITSC made the following factual findings that are both binding and have attained\nfinality u/s. 245-1 of the Act and via non-filing of appeal thereagainst by the\nRespondent authority:\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\nThe above exhibits were owned up by the applicants and pertained to\nthem as well

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. In his submission\nthe appellant has made contention that no cash was actually paid as mentioned\nin the said Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding to sale but that was\nonly a notional/symbolical amount and written for bank loan purposes. Further he\nmade contention that the observation and finding

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

132(4). The term ‘undisclosed income’ has been defined in Explanations to section 271AAB. Therefore, as per the definition provided in the Explanation, the undisclosed income may have various forms and the same is not recorded in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in normal course relating to the specified previous year. As per sub-clause

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

132(4) made the sole basis by the AO for \nmaking the addition has been retracted by the assessee and hence reliance on the \nsame for making the addition is misplaced.\n(8) That in lieu of premium amount, UIT, Kota will provide to M/s Nav Bharat Nirman \nCo. (JV) the following plots on the completion of the project

SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 05.02.2015 in case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota and the assessee was part of the said Group. During the course of search proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act wherein he has declared undisclosed income

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 was\ncarried out at the residential and business premises of “ Chandra Prakash Agarwal\nGroup" on 28.07.2016, of which the assessee is one of the members covered therein.\nFor the year under consideration, return under section 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961\ndeclaring total income

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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

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

132(4) viz-a-viz\nS. 131(1) and S. 133A for that reason, which aspect, has been fully\nappreciated by the various decisions cited by the ld. A/R. The ld. CIT(A) has\ncompletely misinterpreted and misapplied the ratio in the aforesaid case.\nThe reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) on certain decisions are based on the\npeculiar

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

house property, business and other sources. A search u/s 132 was carried out at the residential and business premises of “ Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group” on 28.07.2016, of which the assessee is one of the members covered therein. During the course of search, the assessee surrendered an income of Rs. 40,00,000/- as admitted in the statement recorded under section

SH. MADAN LAL GUPTA,KESHAV NAGAR, ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members/concerns of Gupta Group, Alwar on 22.09.2017 of which the assessee is one of the members. During the above referred action

SH. MADAN LAL GUPTA,KESHAV NAGAR, ALWAR vs. ADDL. CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members/concerns of Gupta Group, Alwar on 22.09.2017 of which the assessee is one of the members. During the above referred action

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

house property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 07.01.2016 in the Shri Bitthal Das Parwal & Ors. vs. ACIT case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the IT Act was completed

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

house property, business, capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 07.01.2016 in the Shri Bitthal Das Parwal & Ors. vs. ACIT case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the IT Act was completed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

4) of section 22 of the Indian\nIncome-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was\nissued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other\ndocuments has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such\nbooks of account or other documents as required by such

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. In his submission\nthe appellant has made contention that no cash was actually paid as mentioned\nin the said Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding to sale but that was\nonly a notional/symbolical amount and written for bank loan purposes. Further he\nmade contention that the observation and finding

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

section 69 of the IT Act, 1961. In his submission\nthe appellant has made contention that no cash was actually paid as mentioned\nin the said Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding to sale but that was\nonly a notional/symbolical amount and written for bank loan purposes. Further he\nmade contention that the observation and finding