SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 (All) Natural justice opportunity Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 Conclusion – In Favour of Revenue: 34 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal 1. Section 153A empowers AO to make additions based on seized material. 2. Section 292C provides a strong presumption in favour of Revenue. 3. Assessee has primary onus to rebut

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 (All) Natural justice opportunity Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 Conclusion – In Favour of Revenue: 34 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal 1. Section 153A empowers AO to make additions based on seized material. 2. Section 292C provides a strong presumption in favour of Revenue. 3. Assessee has primary onus to rebut

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 (All) Natural justice opportunity Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 Conclusion – In Favour of Revenue: 34 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal 1. Section 153A empowers AO to make additions based on seized material. 2. Section 292C provides a strong presumption in favour of Revenue. 3. Assessee has primary onus to rebut

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

271 (All) Natural justice opportunity Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 Conclusion – In Favour of Revenue: 34 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal 1. Section 153A empowers AO to make additions based on seized material. 2. Section 292C provides a strong presumption in favour of Revenue. 3. Assessee has primary onus to rebut

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) were issued. Thereafter, the ld. AR of the assessee attended the proceedings as per the case were discussed with him. It was stated that the assessee has been engaged in retail business in the name and style of Krishna Radymade& Fancy Store at near Government Hospital, Samod. The assessee furnished trading, profit & loss account

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 292C of the Act. Thus, substantive addition of Rs. 1,01,99,728/- is hereby made in the total income of the assessee as unaccounted investment in purchase of plots. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is premature, therefore the same is dismissed. Ground of Appeal No. 9 is general in nature and not needing any specific adjudication. The main Ground of Appeal No. 1 to 7 (Ground of Appeal No. 2 to 2.4, Ground of Appeal No. 3 to 3.2, Ground of Appeal No. 4 to 4.4 and Ground