MUKESH KUMAR SAINI,SIKANDARA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is in ITA no

Bench: or at the time of hearing.” 5. It is seen that the only grievance raised by the assessee is that PCIT erred in holding the order of the assessment as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Brief facts related to the issue are culled out are that in this case a Survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on 26.02.2019 at the business premises of the assessee firm M/s Nirankar Tiles and Sanitory 4

133A were not enforceable and were in defiance of circular of the board, which make them unlawful. The position being so, the provisions of section 68/69/69A are not applicable even distantly and accordingly provisions of section 115BBE were also not attracted in this case. It is submitted that in his order under section 263 the learned CIT has observed

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

133A were not enforceable and were in defiance of circular of the board, which make them unlawful. The position being so, the provisions of section 68/69/69A are not applicable even distantly and accordingly provisions of section 115BBE were also not attracted in this case. It is submitted that in his order under section 263 the learned CIT has observed

PRAKASH CHAND SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133A were not enforceable and were in defiance of circular of the board, which make them unlawful. The position being so, the provisions of section 68/69/69A are not applicable even distantly and accordingly provisions of section 115BBE were also not attracted in this case. It is submitted that in his order under section 263 the learned CIT has observed

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 to 69D in the assessment order does not absolve the assessee from penalty liability under Section 271AAC(1) if the nature of the income falls within its scope. In other words, the acceptance of higher tax liability under Section 115BBE serves as an implicit admission that the surrendered income is unexplained and falls under the categories listed in Section

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

section is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, to say that statement recorded u/s 133A(3)(iii) is equivalent to statement recorded u/s 131 is a gross misinterpretation of the provisions. 7.3 Decision cited by CIT(A) not applicable: The reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) on certain decisions are based on the peculiar facts available in those

MUKESH KUMAR AHUJA,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

survey action u/s 133A in the case of the assessee was conducted on 11.09.2018. Assessee is an individual and derives income from trading of electrical and electronic items. The assessee had filed his ITR u/s 139 for the A.Y. 2019-20 on 23.03.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 1,68,93,940/-. The case of the assessee was manually selected

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,\n69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D if such income is not reflected in the return of income\nfurnished under section 139 of the Act, income tax payable shall be @ 60% on\nincome so referred in the said section.\n19. Change which has been brought about in the provisions relates to income so\nreferred to in the afore-stated sections

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 by taking the view that cash found during the course of search/seizure is not backed by valid Books of accounts as it has been rejected, and also erred without bringing any cogent material in support of his contention and without bringing corroborative evidence and without considering the materials and explanations available on records in their true perspective and sense

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. The bench 41 Alka Khandaka vs. ITO noted that the ld. AO while doubting the purchase of the three parties only one party he confronted a person he said that he was not aware. But the ld. AO has not verified that in this case payment has been by an account payees and in two other

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 68 of the Act while the provisions of 68 as such are not applicable on the sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts because the sale transaction are already part of the income which is already credited in Profit & Loss Account, therefore there is no occasion to again consider the same as income of the appellant by applying

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)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2. Jaipur by the Commissioner

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2. Jaipur by the Commissioner

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2. Jaipur by the Commissioner

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2. Jaipur by the Commissioner

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2. Jaipur by the Commissioner

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A (1) of the I.T. Act was also conducted at business premises of the assessee. No incriminating documents, cash or valuable items were found during the course of survey proceedings. Finally, the cash of Rs. 22,19,590/- which was found from the bag of Shri Atul Kumar Sharma was seized in course of search action. 3. It was further

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07- 2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132.The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2, Jaipur by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07- 2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132.The jurisdiction over the case was assigned to Central Circle - 2, Jaipur by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur