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

271\n(All)\nNatural justice opportunity Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 62\ntaxmann.com 3\nConclusion – In Favour of Revenue:\n6. Section 153A empowers AO to make additions based on seized material.\n7. Section 292C provides a strong presumption in favour of Revenue.\n8. Assessee has primary onus to rebut the entries/documents with documentary\nproof.\n9. Failure to rebut = valid

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)

u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in advances on the basis of Page 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it is a memorandum noting without name. Even otherwise, the source of giving such advance was out of the cash available as per the cash book and the amount

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

u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in advances on the basis of Page 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it is a memorandum noting without name. Even otherwise, the source of giving such advance was out of the cash available as per the cash book and the amount

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)

u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in advances on the basis of Page 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it is a memorandum noting without name. Even otherwise, the source of giving such advance was out of the cash available as per the cash book and the amount

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)

u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment in advances on the basis of Page 57 of Exhibit 4 of AS-1 by not accepting the explanation that it is a memorandum noting without name. Even otherwise, the source of giving such advance was out of the cash available as per the cash book and the amount

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271 of the Constitution, by way of section 2 read with first schedule to the Finance Act. The Court thus having regard to the legislative history held that surcharge and additional surcharge (Cess) being charged in addition to income tax in exercise of constitutional powers are nothing but tax on income. Levy of Cess in addition to income

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 143(3), where the Assessing officer has forgot to invoke the provisions of section 115JB of the Act, the matter clearly falls within purview of section 154 of the Act and the same can be rectified as mistake apparent from record. 15. Now, coming to another contention of the ld AR that in view of sub-section